WICHITA FALLS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update 2005 – 2030
January, 2005
WICHITA FALLS
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN
UPDATE
2005 – 2030
Sponsoring Agencies
Wichita Falls Metropolitan Planning Organization
City of Wichita Falls
City of Lakeside City
City of Pleasant Valley
Wichita County
Archer County
Texas Department of Transportation
In Cooperation With
Federal Highway Administration
Citizen Advisory Committee
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The firm of Lockwood, Andrews and Newnam, Inc. (LAN) sincerely appreciates the efforts of the Wichita Falls Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Cities of Wichita Falls, Lakeside City, and Pleasant Valley, Wichita and Archer Counties and the Texas Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration in the preparation of this report.
In particular, LAN acknowledges the participation and assistance of:
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) 2004/2005
Mr. Darron Leiker, City of Wichita Falls, (Interim MPO Director and TAC Chairperson) Mr. Joe Anderson, Texas Department of Transportation, Director of Construction Mr. Mark Beauchamp, City of Wichita Falls, Traffic Superintendent Mr. Dave Clark, City of Wichita Falls, Director of Community Development Ms. Karen M. Gagne, City of Wichita Falls, Community Development Mr. Tim Hertel, Texas Department of Transportation, Director of Operations Mr. Jeff Hogan, City of Wichita Falls, City Engineer Mr. James Kelly, Texas Department of Transportation, Area Engineer
Transportation Policy Committee (TPC) 2004/2005
Voting Members
Hon. Bill Altman, Chairperson, Mayor of Wichita Falls Hon. Woodrow (Woody) Gossom, Vice-Chairperson, Wichita County Judge Ms. Linda Ammons, City of Wichita Falls Council Representative Mr. Charles Elmore, City of Wichita Falls Council Representative Mr. Don Sheppard, City of Lakeside City Administrator Mr. Scott Taylor, City of Wichita Falls, Director of Public Works Mr. Larry Tegtmeyer, Texas Department of Transportation, District Engineer Mr. Jeff Watts, City of Pleasant Valley Administrator Mr. Dennis Wilde, North Texas (NORTEX) Regional Planning Commission
Non-Voting Members
Hon. Craig Estes, State Senator, District 30 Hon. David Farabee, State Representative, District 69 Hon. Mac Thornberry, U.S. Representative, District 13 Mr. Jim Berzina, City Manager Mr. Danny Brown, Texas Department of Transportation, Trans. Planning and Dev. Director Ms. Winona Henry, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Ms. Barbara Maley, Federal Highway Administration Mr. Paul Moon, Texas Department of Transportation, PTN Division – Austin Mr. Tim Juarez, Texas Department of Transportation, TPP(S) Division – Austin Hon. Paul O. Wiley, Archer County Judge
MPO and Texas Department of Transportation Staff
Ms. Carolyn Askins, Texas Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Assistant Mr. Donnie Arbeau, Wichita Falls MPO Transportation Planner I Mr. Lin Barnett, Wichita Falls MPO, Senior Transportation Planner
Citizens / Stakeholders
OVERALL CONTENTS OF DOCUMENT
Tabs and Chapter Synopses
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Review of planning, overview of existing plan, review of related studies, and summary of purpose and need
CHAPTER 2: GENERAL SETTING Communities, natural features, history of region, and climate and climatic conditions
CHAPTER 3: REGIONAL TRENDS Social, economic, and development trends
CHAPTER 4: VISION, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES Ideals of the region and MTP
CHAPTER 5: AREA TRANSPORTATION ISSUES Maintenance, goods movement, safety, environmental considerations, resources, and documentation
CHAPTER 6: SPECIAL MATTERS Environmental Justice (EJ) and EJ application to Wichita Falls, Public Involvement policy, and regional bicycle/pedestrian plan
CHAPTER 7: CONGESTION MANAGEMENT Transportation control measures, travel demand management, and transportation system management
CHAPTER 8: FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Financial and implementation plan, funding elements, and innovative financing
CHAPTER 9: PERFORMANCE MEASURES Regional transit, roadways, general system performance, socioeconomic and environmental, and overall project conclusions
CHAPTER 10: BICYCLE MASTER PLAN (BINDER TWO) A comprehensive plan to meet multiple needs with multiple facilities
I GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS
GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
REVIEW OF METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ...... 1 State and Federal Requirements...... 1 MPO/MTP Background...... 1 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) ...... 2 The Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) ...... 2 National Environmental Protection Act...... 3 Clean Air Act & National Ambient Air Quality Standards...... 3 Reauthorization of Tea-21 ...... 4 Reauthorization Status Review...... 4 Inter-modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act ...... 5 Transportation Equity Act for the Twenty-first Century (TEA-21): Changes in Federal Transportation Legislation ...... 6 Key Points: How the TEA-21 Reauthorization Bills Compare ...... 11 Changes in State Transportation Legislation ...... 14 Summary of State Transportation Programs that Apply to Wichita Falls .. 14 HB 3588 Overview ...... 14 Creation of RMAs: A Potential Funding Source ...... 16 State and National Transportation Initiatives ...... 17 Trans-Texas Corridor ...... 17 La Entrada al Pacifico ...... 17 Interstate 69...... 19 Analysis of Impacts to Wichita Falls ...... 22 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN ..... 23 Overview ...... 23 Summary and Key Points of the Wichita Falls 2025 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) ...... 23 Streets and Highways ...... 23 Transportation Planning and Air Quality ...... 25 Public Transportation ...... 25 Bicycles and Pedestrians...... 26 Commercial Truck and Rail...... 26 Aviation...... 26 Progress from Previous Years ...... 28 REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES ...... 28 Update of Socioeconomic and Demographic Factors for Transportation Modeling ...... 28 Wichita Falls Traffic Operations Study (TOS) ...... 29 Wichita Falls Region: ITS Architecture Workshops ...... 29 Report on Transportation Needs in Wichita Falls and Surrounding Areas...... 30 Sheppard Air Force Base Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study (AICUZ) 31 Kickapoo Downtown Airpark Airport Feasibility Study ...... 32 2003 Travel Demand Model Validation...... 32 SUMMARY OF PURPOSE AND NEED ...... 33 Purpose ...... 33 Need...... 33
i GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER TWO: GENERAL SETTING AND LOCATION
GENERAL SETTING AND LOCATION ...... 1 Natural Setting ...... 1 History ...... 3 Wichita County and Wichita Falls ...... 3
CHAPTER THREE: REGIONAL TRENDS
SOCIAL TRENDS ...... 1 Population...... 1 Growth Projections...... 1 Demographics ...... 2 ECONOMIC TRENDS ...... 5 Economic Development and Wichita Falls ...... 6 Economic Development Corporations ...... 6 Sheppard Air Force Base ...... 9 Labor Market ...... 9 Projected Labor Growth...... 10 Major Employers ...... 11 Special Generators ...... 12 Hotter 'N Hell 100 (Annual Race) ...... 13 DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS ...... 18 Rail and Oil – Forces that Encouraged Development ...... 18 Suburbanization and Urban Revitalization ...... 18 Current Land Use...... 20 Commuting and Growth in Vehicle Miles Traveled ...... 23
CHAPTER FOUR: VISION, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES
INTRODUCTION ...... 1 TEA-21 PRINCIPLES...... 1 VISION ...... 1 GOALS...... 1 OBJECTIVES...... 2 GOAL AND OBJECTIVE INCORPORATION...... 4
CHAPTER FIVE: AREA TRANSPORTATION ISSUES
INTRODUCTION ...... 1 MAINTENANCE AND PRESERVATION...... 1 Existing Network...... 1 Maintenance of Streets and Highways...... 2 Incremental Approach ...... 4 Cost-occasioned Approach...... 4 Benefit Based Approach ...... 4 Marginal Cost Approach...... 4 State Maintained Roadways ...... 5 Locally Maintained Roadways...... 5 Thoroughfare Plan ...... 6 Maintenance of Public Transportation ...... 6 Existing System ...... 6
ii GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS
Routes ...... 7 Fares...... 7 Hours of Operation ...... 7 Route Deviation ...... 8 Independent Operators...... 10 Ridership ...... 10 Transit Development ...... 10 MOVEMENT OF GOODS AND PEOPLE...... 11 Highway Freight ...... 11 Rail Freight...... 12 Airport Activities ...... 13 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM SAFETY...... 14 Roadway Safety ...... 15 Traffic Accidents ...... 15 Railroad Crossing Accidents ...... 15 Emergency Evacuation...... 16 Transit Safety and Security...... 17 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS...... 18 RESOURCES...... 18 Wildlife and Vegetation...... 19 Preliminary Wetland Delineation...... 19 Soils and Geology ...... 19 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 19 Human ...... 19 Historical, Cultural, Archaeological...... 19 Social and Economic...... 20 Other Environmental Studies...... 20 Phase One Site Assessment...... 20 DOCUMENTATION ...... 20
CHAPTER SIX: SPECIAL MATTERS
INTRODUCTION ...... 1 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT...... 1 Low-Income Population...... 1 Minority Population...... 2 Environmental Justice as a Distinct Analysis ...... 2 Environmental Justice: A Multi-Faceted Analysis...... 2 Identifying EJ Populations...... 4 Documenting Effort ...... 5 Assessing Adverse Impacts ...... 5 Analysis...... 6 Documentation...... 6 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation, and Enhancement...... 6 Coordination ...... 7 Documentation...... 7 APPLICATION OF EJ TO WICHITA FALLS ...... 7 Procedural Policy...... 8 Goals and Objective...... 8 Analysis Tools Used ...... 9 Methodologies...... 9 Data Sources ...... 10 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT POLICY ...... 10
iii GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS
Specific PIP Practices ...... 12 Public Meetings and Hearings ...... 12 Public Review and Comment ...... 12 Public Appearances...... 12 REGIONAL BICYCLE/ PEDESTRIAN PLAN ...... 12 Elements for Consideration ...... 13
CHAPTER SEVEN: CONGESTION MANAGEMENT
INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Transportation Control Measures ...... 1 Travel Demand Management ...... 1 Vanpools and Carpools...... 1 Telecommuting...... 2 Peak Spreading...... 2 Transportation System Management ...... 2 Incident Detection and Response; Motorist Assistant Program ...... 2 Changeable Message Signs ...... 3 Traffic Operations Center ...... 3 Traffic Signal Timing and Coordination...... 4 Progression ...... 4 Interconnection ...... 4
CHAPTER EIGHT: FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Fiscal Constraint ...... 1 Needs Plan (Illustrative Project List) ...... 1 FINANCIAL AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN...... 2 Selection Process ...... 8 TxDOT Planning Program ...... 9 State and Federal Funding Priority...... 10 TRANSPORTATION FUNDING ELEMENTS ...... 10 Funding Group Methodology ...... 11 Project Funding Minimum Requirements and Priorities ...... 11 Project List Reviews and Updates...... 12 Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program...... 12 FINANCIAL PLAN...... 14 Project Cost Estimates ...... 14 Time Frame Projections ...... 14 Current Funding Sources...... 14 Federal Requirements...... 14 Texas Department of Transportation ...... 15 Projected Local Funds ...... 15 New Funding ...... 17 INNOVATIVE FINANCING ...... 18 State Infrastructure Bank ...... 18 Purpose ...... 18 General Information ...... 18 Toll Authorities...... 19 Pass-Through Financing...... 19 Future Funding ...... 20
iv GENERAL TABLE OF CONTENTS
Third Party Donations of Funds, Materials, or Services for Federally Assisted Projects ...... 20
CHAPTER NINE: PERFORMANCE MEASURES
INTRODUCTION ...... 1 REGIONAL TRANSIT ...... 1 Existing Conditions ...... 1 Emerging Needs...... 2 Recommendations...... 3 ROADWAYS ...... 4 Existing Conditions ...... 4 Emerging Needs...... 5 Recommendations...... 5 GENERAL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE ...... 6 Existing Conditions and Recommendations ...... 6 SOCIOECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL...... 6 Existing Socioeconomic Conditions ...... 6 Existing Environmental Conditions ...... 7 Emerging Socioeconomic and Environmental Needs and Recommendations .. 7 CONCLUSION...... 8
CHAPTER TEN: BICYCLE MASTER PLAN
INTRODUCTION FACILITY INVENTORY BEST PRACTICES BICYCLE FACILITY DESIGN GUIDELINES WAY-FINDING STRATEGIES EDUCATION, ENCOURAGEMENT, AND ENFORCEMENT CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REFERENCES, RESOURCES, AND APPENDIX
DOCUMENT APPENDICES
Chapter 1: Introduction – Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users Chapter 3: Regional Trends – Sanborn Maps Chapter 5: Area Transportation Issues - Wichita Falls Thoroughfare Plan Chapter 6: Special Matters – Public Involvement Process Chapter 8: Financial Analysis – Funding Tables Chapter 10: Bicycle Master Plan – Safety Issues
v CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
Table of Contents
REVIEW OF METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ...... 1 State and Federal Requirements ...... 1 MPO/MTP Background………………………………………………………….. 1 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP)……………………………………….. 2 The Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP)……………………………….. 2 National Environmental Protection Act……………………………………….. 3 Clean Air Act & National Ambient Air Quality Standards………………….. 3 Reauthorization of Tea-21 ...... 4 Reauthorization Status Review…………………………………………………. 4 Inter-modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act…………………………… 5 Transportation Equity Act for the Twenty-first Century (TEA-21): Changes in Federal Transportation Legislation………………………………………….. 6 Key Points: How the TEA-21 Reauthorization Bills Compare……………. 11 Changes in State Transportation Legislation...... 14 Summary of State Transportation Programs that Apply to Wichita Falls… 14 HB 3588 Overview…………………………………………………………….. 14 Creation of RMAs: A Potential Funding Source…………………………….. 16 State and National Transportation Initiatives...... 17 Trans-Texas Corridor…………………………………………………………… 17 La Entrada al Pacifico………………………………………………………….. 17 Interstate 69……………………………………………………………………… 19 Analysis of Impacts to Wichita Falls…………………………………………. 22 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN ...... 23 Overview ...... 23 Summary and Key Points of the Wichita Falls 2025 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)...... 23 Streets and Highways………………………………………………………….. 23 Transportation Planning and Air Quality……………………………………. 25 Public Transportation………………………………………………………….. 25 Bicycles and Pedestrians………………………………………………………. 26 Commercial Truck and Rail…………………………………………………… 26 Aviation………………………………………………………………………….. 26 Progress from Previous Years ...... 28 REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES...... 28 Update of Socioeconomic and Demographic Factors for Transportation Modeling...... 28 Wichita Falls Traffic Operations Study (TOS) ...... 29 Wichita Falls Region: ITS Architecture Workshops...... 29 Report on Transportation Needs in Wichita Falls and Surrounding Areas 30 Sheppard Air Force Base Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study (AICUZ) ...... 31 Kickapoo Downtown Airpark Airport Feasibility Study...... 32 2003 Travel Demand Model Validation ...... 32 SUMMARY OF PURPOSE AND NEED ...... 33 Purpose…………………………………………………………………………… 33 Need……………………………………………………………………………… 33
i CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
transportation investments that REVIEW OF METROPOLITAN would better balance highway, TRANSPORTATION mass transit and other needs and PLANNING lead to more cost-effective solutions to transportation problems” (North Jersey This report is a review and update Transportation Planning Authority, of the Wichita Falls 2000-2025 Inc. 2004)1. Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). The Wichita Falls In 1975, the Governor of Texas Metropolitan Planning designated the City of Wichita Falls Organization (MPO) contracted to be the MPO to work in Lockwood, Andrews, Newnam cooperation with the State in (LAN) to perform this update to overall transportation planning meet Federal requirements for responsibilities for the urbanized comprehensive, coordinated, and area. cooperative long-range transportation planning. In 1991, Congress changed the roles of MPOs when it passed the State and Federal Requirements Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). “ISTEA MPO/MTP Background expanded the roles and authority of MPOs in regional planning and Metropolitan Planning provided funding for MPO Organizations (MPOs) are programs, particularly for MPOs in federally-mandated cooperative urbanized communities with a transportation decision-making population of 200,000 or more. bodies for metropolitan areas with The legislation was intended to an urbanized population of at least give metropolitan areas more 50,000 people control over their transportation system, foster a more integrated In the 1970s, the development of planning process, and bring about highways and transportation greater coordination among systems began encountering metropolitan area representatives, extreme opposition from concerned the state, and the private sector2” groups and individuals. Residents (Handy & Brown, 2002). Congress and businesses feared that highway hoped that better planning, construction would upset real facilitated by ISTEA’s new estate values and neighborhood provisions, would improve local cohesion, while others saw transportation systems. Since highways having negative impacts ISTEA, many states have passed on environmental resources and legislation to give MPOs more treasures. responsibilities.
As a response to “the vastly more complex transportation policy environment in the 1970s, Congress required each urbanized 1http://www.njtpa.org/public_affair area to establish a Metropolitan s/mpo_history/hist_mpo3.htm. Planning Organization (MPO) Accessed July 23, 2004. composed largely of local officials. 2 Handy, Susan L. & Jackie Brown. A Congress hoped MPOs would help Guide to Success for Small Texas build regional agreement on Metropolitan Transportation Organizations, UT and TxDOT. 2002.
1 CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
Figure 1 presents a map of Wichita The UPWP is Federally mandated Falls and Environs. Figure 2 and is part of the Transportation Figure 1.1: Map of Wichita Falls and presents a map of the MPO. The Equity Act for the 21st Century Environs Wichita Falls MPO takes in the City (TEA-21) that continued the section of Wichita Falls and surrounding of federal law (initially adopted in area. 1962) defining the responsibilities of a Metropolitan Planning Transportation Improvement Plan Organization. (TIP) Seven broad planning areas were The Transportation Improvement identified in TEA-21. The work Program (TIP) is a three-year tasks contained in each UPWP schedule of all transportation address all seven areas. projects, including major streets 1. Support the economic vitality and highways, public of the metropolitan area, transportation, pedestrian especially by enabling global walkways, bicycle facilities, and competitiveness, productivity, Source: U.S. Census Bureau transportation enhancement projects proposed for federal and efficiency; funding and carried out within the 2. Increase the safety and security Figure 1.2: Wichita Falls MPO Wichita Falls Metropolitan of the transportation system for Planning Area. Regionally motorized and non-motorized significant locally funded projects users; are included as well. Requisite to 3. Increase the accessibility and receiving federal funding, all mobility options available to FHWA and/or FTA supported people and for freight; transportation projects in the 4. Protect and enhance the Wichita Falls Metropolitan Area environment, promote energy must be listed in the TIP and in the conservation, and improve long-range Metropolitan quality of life; Transportation Plan – 2025. 5. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the The Unified Planning Work transportation system, across Program (UPWP) and between modes, for people and freight; The UPWP is the annual 6. Promote efficient system implementation document for the management and operation; 25-Year MTP. All transportation and Source: U.S. Census Bureau and transportation-related planning 7. Emphasize the preservation of within the MPO planning area is the existing transportation coordinated by the UPWP, and system. gives details of Federal and State Previous plans listed in the FY funded activities proposed for 2005 UPWP are: completion during that fiscal year. Features of the UPWP include a 1. Studies and presentations to budget for the utilization of funds, TxDOT / Texas Transportation and a project-by-project Commission in support of and breakdown of which agency is prioritizing the completion of responsible for which task. By US 82/277 (Kell Freeway), and providing this level of detail, the its connection to US 287/US UPWP is able to be a vehicle for 281/SH79/IH-44 elevated grant application and project freeway via a four-direction management. interchange, and completion of
2 CITY OF WICHITA FALLS Wichita County Location Metropolitan Transportation Plan Update 2005 - 2030 40 §¨¦40 §¨¦ §¨¦40 £287 §¨¦44 35 ¤ §¨¦ ¤£69 §¨¦27 ¤£87 Dallas Location and Vicinity §¨¦30 §¨¦20 §¨¦20 Wichita Falls Metropolitan Planning Organization §¨¦20 (!5 (MPO) Boundary §¨¦10 §¨¦45 35 Cities §¨¦10 §¨¦ ¤£183 Wichita Falls ¤£277 Houston §¨¦10 San §¨¦10 Burkburnett Antonio (!5A Dean ¤£70 37 §¨¦ Electra §¨¦35 Red Ri Holliday 5B (!65 (! Iowa Park ve r Jolly Lakeside City ¤£70 Pleasant Valley Adams Cr Wil eek dhorse Roadways
Interstate (I) and US Highway (US) Creek ¤£287 State Highway (SH)
240 (! 240 County Boundary
(!
eek t Cr ber Gil ¦¨§44 iver 287 Wichita County ta R ¤£ ¤£277 Wichi BUS 287 £ 281 County Clay ¤ NORTH FORK BUFFALO ¤£
CREEK RESERVOIR !240 LAKE ( ELECTRA
ger County
Buff ¤£287 alo C (!79
bar reek BUS 287 240 ¯ ¤£ (! Beav Miles er Wil Creek 0 2 4 8
BUS ¤£277 281 BUS Source: ¤£ 287 ¤£82 ¤£287 ¤£82 ¤£ City of Wichita Falls, 2003 ¤£277 ¤£82 Creek¤£281 277 ¤£ 79 (! Date: January 13, 2005 Holiday 79 (! 287 LAKE WICHITA ¤£ ¤£82
LAKE Str DIVERSION Archer County Baylor County eam CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
the western two-mile section to Clean Air Act & National Ambient complete the Kell Freeway Air Quality Standards project; 2. The Alternative Fuel Study for The Clean Air Act of 1990 (CAA) the City’s transit fleet; established the National Ambient 3. The Corridor Feasibility Study Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for for the extension of Loop 11 various types of airborne from US 287 to IH-44; pollutants. Initially, these 4. The 2004 update to the standards were for one-hour Socioeconomic Data durations, but in 1997 these Collection Forecast Study; and, standards were replaced by much 5. Data for the Bicycle Master more stringent eight-hour Plan for the 2005-2030 MTP standards. This replacement was update. made to better reflect urban build- up of pollutants and provide more National Environmental Protection protection to the public health. Figure 1.3: The Wichita Falls Act These new standards applied only to Attainment Areas for the one- In 1969, Congress enacted the hour standard but Non-Attainment National Environmental Protection Areas would be held to the new Act (NEPA). The NEPA was standards after attaining the one- enacted to hour standard. As with the one- hour standard, the new standard “Declare a national policy which cannot be exceeded more than will encourage productive and three times in three years at any enjoyable harmony between man one testing station. If the standard and his environment; to promote is exceeded four times in three efforts which will prevent or years at any one station, the area is in violation of the standard and no Source: [email protected] eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and longer in "Attainment." stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the As of April 2004, Wichita Falls was understanding of the ecological an “Attainment” area. systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to Exceeding standards could impact establish a Council on transportation planning by cutting Environmental Quality.” (U.S. off funding or implementing Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency Agency. (EPA) austerity measures. http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/n epa/nepaeqia.htm.)
The NEPA of 1969 has become the basis of environmental legislation. The Act also affects transportation legislation by requiring observation of environmental issues related to transportation planning.
3 CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
an extension bill to hold spending Reauthorization of Tea-21 at the current 2004 levels. “People criticize the bill as full of pork barrel projects, but the reality is Reauthorization Status Review Before it recessed, Congress that these earmarks are the only way extended TEA-21 for eight months many projects in rural areas will be Reauthorization efforts began in through May 31, 2005. The funded.” May 2003 with the introductions of extension authorizes transit House of Representatives, Senate programs at a level equal to eight- - Michael Reeves Bills, and Administration bills. twelfths of the $7.758 billion Ports to Plains President Budget totals for the three bills included in the Senate were $375, $318, $256 billion, Appropriations Committee-passed respectively. Despite threats of FY 2005 appropriations bill. This veto from the Administration for extension is the sixth since May, any budget in excess of $256 2003. billion, in February to April 2004 both the House and Senate passed The recent extension bill is the their respective bills. Prior to a sixth. At the time, the House and House vote, the House bill was Senate were less than $3 billion trimmed to $275 billion. The apart in total funding and the Senate bill was passed at the House felt its final offer would original total dollar value. receive the President’s signature. Negotiations have not resumed. In early June 2004, the House and Unfortunately, the Presidential Senate struck a Conference Election on November 2nd changed Committee to negotiate a final bill. the House and Senate and a new Negotiations continued through bill will need to be drafted. It is July 2004, reaching agreement on believed, however, that much of most minor provisions. However, the original language will appear in before leaving on their six-week the rewritten bill and the Senate recess, Conferees were not able to will pass new Transportation reach agreement on the overall Legislation by the end of the May budget. Instead, Congress passed 2005 extension.
Table 1.1: Major Funding Comparison of Competing TEA-Reauthorization Bills House Senate Administration National Investment (HR 3550) (S 1072) (SAFETEA) Total Investment $275 billion $318 billion $256 billion Comparison of Total Up $93 billion Up $136 billion Up $74 billion Investment to TEA-21 ($182 billion) (34 Percent) (43 Percent) (29 Percent) Highways $217 billion $255 billion $206.4 billion Transit $52 billion $56 billion $43.6 billion Safety Programs $6 billion $7 billion $6 billion Passed in House Passed in Senate Status of Bill Proposed April 2, 2004 Feb. 12, 2004 * This value represents the $100 billion that was stripped from the initially introduced bill. The change in proposed funding was to encourage Administration approval. Sources: US Dept. Transportation, House of Representatives, Senate, Respectively
4 CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
Reaching a consensus on overall safety, efficiency, and equity in funding levels remains the most ways that were not possible within difficult and daunting task. This the parameters of the previous most recent extension would philosophy. provide an opportunity for Congress to approve a new bill The ISTEA recognized that the either before the next Presidential growth of metropolitan areas was election or during a November much different than in the past and “lame duck” session. However, that, because development and because Congress has not set any economic, cultural diversity, and further Conference Committee social needs were often place meetings and because the number specific, metropolitan areas needed of days on the legislative calendar flexibility and control in their is diminishing, it is unlikely this transportation planning activities. extension will yield a new act, and this is likely to push the process Part of this flexibility was the ability into 2005. Table 1.1 is a to form partnerships and alliances. comparison of the TEA- Metropolitan areas needed the Reauthorization bill major funding ability to coordinate more closely “The ISTEA recognized that the elements with their State governments and to growth of metropolitan areas was develop and strengthen linkages much different than in the past and with the private sector; and there that, because development and Inter-modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act was need to involve “place economic, cultural diversity, and specific” modes of alternative social needs were often place The Intermodal Surface transportation. specific, metropolitan areas needed Transportation Efficiency Act flexibility and control in their (ISTEA) was the name given federal While flexibility for metropolitan transportation planning activities.” legislation (Public Law 102-240) areas formed the building blocks of which authorized federal highway, the new transportation- planning highway safety, transit and other model, national concerns for surface transportation projects. The economic growth, mobility, and bill was signed into law in accessibility remained December 1991 and expired on fundamental. The “3C” process of September 30, 1997. “continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive” was maintained, The ISTEA was a landmark piece of but an attitude of better meeting legislation. During the early part of the needs of all constituencies now the Clinton Administration, it strengthened the planning process. became clear that the Interstate These constituencies came to Highway System that President include key stakeholders who, in Eisenhower began in 1956 had the past, had been silenced or evolved to the point of near excused from the planning process. completion. Lawmakers The process began including the determined that the previous voices of the business community, perspective of building needed to members of the public, community change to one of preserving. New groups, and other governmental interstate highways would continue agencies. to be built and modernized, but the highest priority was to make sure While the Interstate Highway that existing highways remained System was responsible for safe and efficient. This change in allowing cities to grow, it also philosophy allowed lawmakers to produced growth that came to limit implement programs and perceive system development options. The
5 CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
ISTEA reflected an understanding of • It met the needs of the “With TEA-21, the structure of the the constraints imposed upon environment. federal transit programs were further expansion of the highway • It strengthened the partnerships maintained but new programs and network, particularly in required to make sound activities were added.” metropolitan areas, and that the transportation decisions. maximization of system efficiency and system preservation needed to • It allocated available funds become priorities. based primarily on need. • It recognized that different Finally, the ISTEA recognized the states have different needs. need to protect built and natural environments and the lives of Transportation Equity Act for the travelers. The combination of the Twenty-first Century (TEA-21): built and natural environments is Changes in Federal Transportation what metropolitan areas are made Legislation of and these must be protected, just as much as the safety and equity of On June 9 1998, Congress enacted those that use the highway system, legislation to replace ISTEA. The its services, and the services of new six-year bill was known as the “Changes in how we manage and transportation providers. Transportation Equity Act for the operate transportation can save Twenty-first Century (TEA-21). It was quite similar to ISTEA, building money and lives, cut congestion, and As part of that, the ISTEA made on previous initiatives. The strides in achieving the air quality improve environmental quality. But continuing goal of TEA-21 was an objectives embodied in the Clean to achieve this we need better extension of the ISTEA goal. planning, better accountability for Air Act Amendments of 1990 the effects of decisions, and fuller (CAAA) and in State air quality To meet the challenges of consideration of alternatives to plans. The CAAA, also ground- improving safety as traffic breaking legislation, changed building more and bigger highways.” continues to increase at record planning so that in areas failing to levels, protecting and enhancing
meet Federal air quality standards, communities and the natural - Donald Hoppert, American transportation planning is geared to environment as we provide Public Health Association improving air quality as well as transportation, and advancing mobility. America’s economic growth and competitiveness domestically and In sum, the ISTEA and its internationally through efficient implementing regulations and flexible transportation. envisioned an open decision (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/s making process eliciting the input umover.htm) and active involvement of all affected individuals, groups, and The legislation had significant communities, and addressing the features that were strengthened or full range of effects that the additional to ISTEA. transportation investments may have on communities and their • Assurance of a guaranteed residents. level of Federal funds for surface transportation through ISTEA was successful for several FY 2003. reasons. • Extension of the Disadvantaged • It did not favor one mode over Business Enterprises (DBE) program. another. • It met the needs of the • Strengthening of safety programs across the economy.
6 CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
Department of Transportation to nonurbanized areas (less (DOT). than 50,000 in population). • Continuation of the proven and • To assist transit operators in the effective program structure purchase of low-emissions established for highways and buses and related equipment, transit under the landmark construction of alternative-fuel ISTEA legislation. fueling facilities, modification • Investing in research and its of garage facilities to application to maximize the accommodate clean-fuel performance of the vehicles, and assist in the transportation system. utilization of biodiesel fuel. • The Formula Grants for Special Needs of Elderly Individuals In terms of funding, there were and Individuals with many changes but the most Disabilities provides transit profound was in how monies were capital assistance, through the allocated. TEA-21 gave autonomy States, to organizations that to surface transportation and provide specialized established new ways of ensuring transportation services to that money would be on-hand for elderly persons and to persons needed projects. Before TEA-21, with disabilities. budgets for highways came out of general coffers as line items. With Capitol Investment Grants TEA-21, highways spending came from transportation taxation, and, • The renamed Capital as in the case of public transit, the Investment Grants and Loans money could only be spent on Program (formerly transportation supportive projects. Discretionary Grants) will continue providing transit Detailed descriptions of many of capital assistance for new fixed the programs listed within this guideway systems and section are included on the House, extensions to existing fixed Senate, and Administration Web guideway systems (New Starts), sites, as well as the FHWA Web fixed guideway modernization, site. and bus and bus related facilities. With TEA-21, the structure of the Transit Benefits federal transit programs were maintained but new programs and • The Act changed the Internal activities were added. Revenue Code to help level the playing field between parking Formula Grants benefits and transit/vanpool • The Urbanized Area Formula benefits. The limit on Grants Program provides transit nontaxable transit and vanpool capital and operating benefits increased. In assistance to urbanized areas addition, the bill allowed with populations of more than transit and vanpool benefits to 50,000. be offered in lieu of compensation payable to an • Formula Grants for Other than employee for taxable years, Urbanized Areas provides giving transit and vanpool transit capital and operating benefits the same tax treatment assistance, through the States, given to parking benefits.
7 CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
Job Access and Reverse Environmental Planning Commute Grants Another significant element of TEA- • The Access to Jobs Program 21 was its building on the provides competitive grants to environmental considerations of local governments and non- transportation. ISTEA was an entry- profit organizations to develop level approach to environmental transportation services to planning that TEA-21 leveraged. connect welfare recipients and For example, TEA-21 addressed low-income persons to public education for pedestrians employment and support and bicyclists, built transportation services. museums, and researched methods for reducing highway wildlife kill. Transit Enhancements TEA-21 also expanded involvement in scenic and historic highway • Transit enhancement projects programs. Also part of its bicycle must enhance mass and pedestrian enhancements, transportation service or use TEA-21 expanded involvement in and be physically or the alternative transportation functionally related to transit environment, by addressing facilities. corridors, pathways, and pedestrian facilities. In fact, TEA-21 allocated Rural Transportation more resources to pedestrian and Accessibility Program recreational projects than to any other. • This new program will assist in financing the incremental Metropolitan Planning capital and training costs Organizations (MPO) associated with implementing the Department's Final Rule on Continued expansion of “Metropolitan planning became accessibility requirements for transportation planning at the state and local levels was a further more important and Metropolitan Over-The-Road-Buses (OTRBs). USDOT issued a Notice of notable element of TEA-21. Planning Organizations (MPOs) Proposed Rulemaking on Metropolitan planning became were given increased March 25, 1998 describing the more important and Metropolitan responsibilities.” proposed method for Planning Organizations (MPOs) implementing this requirement, were given increased with a final rule issued later in responsibilities. For example, the 1998. The reauthorization governing role of the MPO in language adopts the definition relation to Non-Attainment was of OTRBs used in the ADA. enhanced. Other changes were The OTRB rule is required by included to further ensure the the Americans with Disabilities involvement of local officials, Act of 1990 (ADA). especially local officials in nonmetropolitan areas; strengthen Special Programs the financial aspects of the planning process; and improve • Direct Federal Credit coordination, cooperation, and • State Infrastructure Banks public involvement. MPOs and • Federal Matching Flexibility States were encouraged to • Tolls coordinate the design and delivery of federally funded non-emergency transportation services. The requirement for a stand-alone major investment study was
8 CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
replaced with a directive that such MPOs, and transit agencies to analyses under the planning invest in projects that reduce provisions of TEA-21 and the criteria air pollutants regulated National Environmental Policy Act from transportation-related sources. are to be integrated. The program requires reductions in the amount of permissible tailpipe The MP process establishes a emissions; initiates stringent control cooperative, continuous, and measures in areas that still failed to comprehensive framework for attain the NAAQS (Non-Attainment making transportation investment Areas); and provides for a strong decisions in metropolitan areas. and rigorous linkage between Program oversight is a joint transportation and air quality FHWA/FTA responsibility. planning. Specific Share Surface Transportation Program (STP) For each State, the Act specifies a certain share of the aggregate The STP provides flexible funding funding for the following programs: that may be used by States and Interstate Maintenance (IM), localities for projects on any National Highway System (NHS), Federal-aid highway, including the Bridge, Congestion Mitigation and NHS, bridge projects on any public Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement, road, transit capital projects, and Surface Transportation Program intra-city and inter-city bus (STP), Metropolitan Planning, High terminals and facilities. A portion Priority Projects, Appalachian of funds reserved for rural areas Development Highway System, may be spent on rural minor Recreational Trails, and the collectors. The STP includes Minimum Guarantee funding itself. several applicable sub-programs. The shares specified were pegged to meet the objective of a 90.5 • Bicycle Transportation and percent return based on the data Pedestrian Walkways, Section 5307 Funding from the available at the time of enactment. • Training for Welfare Recipients FTA The following TEA-21 funding programs apply to Wichita Falls. o Urbanized area capital grants Federal Transit Administration o Allocated to a single grant National Highway System (FTA) recipient in each urbanized area (NHS) The Federal government, through based on transit performance the FTA, provides financial measures and population The NHS provides a system of assistance to develop new transit characteristics interconnected principle arterial systems and improve, maintain, routes that serve major population and operate existing systems. o Requires 20% local match centers, international border May be used for facility o crossings, ports, airports, public Federal Transit Grant Programs construction and maintenance; transportation facilities and other property acquisition; and major travel destinations; meet The Section 5307 and Section 5311 purchase of vehicles and national defense requirements; and transit grant programs are the most equipment serve interstate and interregional relevant funding sources, since o May be used for certain non- travel. they are base sources of non- routine and non-preventative competitive grant funding and are Congestion Mitigation and Air the only funding sources that are maintenance functions Quality (CMAQ) Improvement directly linked to urbanized and o May be used for planning non-urbanized populations as o May NOT be used for transit The TEA-21 CMAQ program determined by the Census Bureau. operations, including routine or provides funds to State DOTs, preventative maintenance
9 CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
This description is intended to 5311 funding is to ensure access by Section 5311 Funding from the explain issues to local agency staff rural populations to employment, FTA and officials who are not familiar healthcare, shopping, recreation, o Allocated to the state and with these Federal grant programs and critical services for the general distributed to non-urbanized and to provide clarity to those staff population and for seniors and areas and officials who may be familiar persons with disabilities. Special with the programs but do not work tasks of the Section 5311 program Up to 15% of statewide o in public transit on a daily basis. include maintenance of intercity program grants may be used by Fact sheets on all of the major bus services to rural areas and the the state to administer the Federal transit grant programs coordination of transportation program applicable to the Central Texas programs among various providers. o 15% of statewide program region are available at the FHWA grants must be used to support Web site. Non-urbanized area formula grants private intercity bus operations may be used for capital, operating in non-urbanized areas Section 5307 Formula Funds assistance, and administration. o Capital programs require 20% Section 5307 funds are formula- Federal funds may cover up to 80% local funding match based capital grants to urbanized of the capital projects or purchases, o Operations require 50% local areas with at least 50,000 in with 20% of funds coming from funding match population. In areas of 200,000 or local, regional, or state funding more in population, funds are sources. Federal funds may cover allocated to the urbanized area, up to 50% of the net operating known also as the Transportation costs of service after depreciation, Management Area (TMA), based on fare-box revenues, and other transit performance measures and operating revenues. Non- population characteristics. Funds urbanized area funds are allocated are distributed by the Federal to the state, and up to 15% of Transit Administration to the grant statewide Section 5311 funding recipient designated by the may be used to administer the Governor to use or reallocate program. In addition, 15% of within the TMA. Section 5311 funding must be reserved to support the privately As capital grants, urbanized area operated intercity bus system in formula funds may be used for any non-urbanized areas, unless the eligible capital purpose, such as Governor determines that all procurement of vehicles and intercity bus needs in the state have equipment, property and facilities, been met. and fixed guideway construction Recreational Trails Program “SAFETEA streamlines the and maintenance. Capital funds environmental review process by may also be used for certain (RTP) improving the link between maintenance functions and for The RTP provides funds to develop transportation planning and project planning purposes. In all cases, and maintain recreational trails for development, modifying current laws capital funds may cover up to 80% motorized and non-motorized regarding time frames for resource of the project or purchase, with recreational trail users. agencies to grant permits, 20% of funds coming from local, establishing a 6-month statute of regional, or state funding sources. Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP) limitations for appeals, and Section 5311 Formula Funds expanding States’ use of highway The HBRRP provides funds to assist funds to assist resource agencies in Section 5311 funds are allocated to the States in their programs to expediting the environmental review non-urbanized areas and to replace or rehabilitate deficient process.” urbanized areas of less than 50,000 highway bridges and to seismic in population. Section 5311 funds retrofit bridges located on any are allocated based on population. public road. The primary purpose of Section
10 CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
Key Points: How the TEA-21 3. Improve Project Delivery. Reauthorization Bills Compare SAFETEA streamlines the environmental review process Each of the proposed bills provides by improving the link between funding increases over TEA-21. In transportation planning and addition, each of the proposed bills project development, includes highlights that others do modifying current laws not. For a full discussion of the regarding time frames for House bill, please refer to resource agencies to grant Appendix A. permits, establishing a 6-month statute of limitations for Provisions of the Administration appeals, and expanding States’ Bill (SAFETEA) use of highway funds to assist The of the Executive Office of the resource agencies in expediting President (Administration) proposes the environmental review a Reauthorization Bill that process. includes: 4. Improve the Movement of 1. Improve Highway Safety. Freight. No new programs are SAFETEA establishes a new created specifically for freight core highway safety mobility in the SAFETEA infrastructure program -- within reauthorization proposal. FHWA -- funded at $1 billion However, the bill requires in FY 2004, growing to $1.5 States to dedicate 2% of their billion in FY 2009. The safety National Highway System infrastructure improvement (NHS) funds for highway programs are currently funded connections between the NHS from a 10 percent set-aside of and intermodal freight the Surface Transportation facilities, such as ports and rail Program (STP). In FY 2003, terminals. The bill also allows $650 million was dedicated for STP funds to be used for these purposes. In addition, publicly owned intermodal states are granted new freight transportation projects flexibility to transfer safety (even rail components of such funds between infrastructure projects) and allows private and behavioral safety freight rail projects to qualify programs, if such transfers are for the Transportation based on a performance-based Infrastructure Finance and comprehensive strategic Innovation Act (TIFIA) credit highway safety plan. program. 2. Expand State and Local 5. Expand and Encourage Innovative Financing. Private “A Congestion Relief Program that Flexibility and Decision- making Authority. Most capital investment is implements new state spending encouraged by permitting State requirements for projects that discretionary grant programs, which are heavily earmarked and local governments to issue remove bottlenecks. TEA-LU will by the Appropriations tax-exempt private activity establish a clear link between current Committees, are eliminated or bonds for all highway and congestion management analysis and formularized. A new pilot transit projects. The TIFIA what projects get built, with firmly program is established that program project cost threshold established deadlines for completing allows States to manage their is lowered from $100 million these projects.” core highway program funds as to $50 million to increase a block grant. access to government loan assistance. States would be allowed to charge tolls on
11 CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
Federal-aid highways, projects that remove including the Interstate System, bottlenecks. TEA-LU will provided that the funds are re- establish a clear link between invested in the facility and that current congestion the tolls are established as part management analysis and what of a congestion or air quality projects are built, with firmly management plan. SAFETEA established deadlines for would allow States to permit completing these projects. single occupancy vehicles on HOV lanes, as long as it was 2. Increased Safety measures, within the context of a variable including a core program for pricing program that did not highway infrastructure degrade the throughput of the improvements with funding HOV facility. levels nearly double those in TEA -21. Programs and 6. Improve Oversight and campaigns also include a High Accountability. SAFETEA Risk Rural Road Safety would strengthen the Program; Safe Routes to stewardship of federal funds by School; Click it or Ticket; You requiring that project Drink, You Drive, You Lose; management plans and annual and at least five other kinds of finance plans be submitted for state motor carrier safety all Federal-Aid projects costing grants. $1 billion or more. The proposal also requires that 3. Five different Freight Mobility annual finance plans be programs designed specifically prepared for all projects to improve the movement of receiving $100 million or more freight both regionally and in Federal-Aid funds. nationally (i.e., beyond the immediate local area of the 7. Highway Research and project). TEA-LU will improve Intelligent Transportation public roads leading to and Systems. SAFETEA provides from major intermodal over $3.2 billion over six years facilities, establish dedicated for highway-related research truck lanes, and fund regional and development and and multi-state corridors that Intelligent Transportation will promote economic growth Systems (ITS). The proposal in areas underserved by seeks to put a greater emphasis existing highway infrastructure. on using these technologies to TEA-LU also provides funding improve the performance and for Border States to facilitate operation of transportation efficient freight movement to systems in a way that directly and from Canada and Mexico. benefits transportation customers. 4. A strong commitment to Public Transportation, with $51.53 Provisions of the House Proposed billion in guaranteed funding, “SAFETEA replaces the old Reauthorization Bill (TEA-LU) which will increase formula Minimum Guarantee Program of funds for rural areas and The House of Representatives provide more financial support TEA-21 with a new Equity Bonus proposes a Reauthorization Bill that for services for the disabled. program to ensure that by the FY includes: This represents a 43% increase 2009, no state receives less than 95 1. A Congestion Relief Program in guaranteed funding over cents of every dollar it sends to the TEA-21. Highway account of the Highway that implements new state spending requirements for Trust Fund.”
12 CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
5. An increased emphasis on the management plans and annual improvement of National financial plans for Federal-aid Infrastructure. TEA-LU grows projects above $1billion and highway funding from $34.4 requiring annual financial billion in 2004 to $39.9 billion plans for all projects receiving in 2009; public transportation $100 million or more in funding grows from $7.3 Federal aid. billion in 2004 to $10 billion in 2009. TEA-LU also 3. S. 1072 establishes a new authorizes a new $6.6 billion method of determining "Projects of National and Revenue Aligned Budget Regional Significance" program Authority (RABA). RABA is a to help states pay for high cost complicated financing (but high benefit) highway mechanism that seeks to align projects. Taken together, these expected revenues from Trust investments will allow states Fund excise taxes with future and localities to not only Highway spending. This maintain their roads, bridges, provision amends section 110 and transit systems, but also of title 23, to continue the improve them. RABA provision during fiscal years 2006-2009. It also 6. A Uniform Planning Title that amends section 110 to provide will combine highway and that if the RABA adjustment in transit planning and project a fiscal year is negative, the delivery provisions into one amount of contract authority uniform program. apportioned to the States for that year shall be reduced by 7. A number of new, an amount equal to the miscellaneous provisions, negative RABA. Under TEA-21, including an equity guarantee negative adjustments were (90.5% minimum percentage delayed until the succeeding return from highway formula fiscal year. programs) and a small starts program ($1 billion grant 4. To ensure that freight needs are program for new fixed considered during the planning guideway systems). process, SAFETEA calls upon each state to designate freight Provisions of the Senate Proposed coordinators. Efficiency and Reauthorization Bill (SAFETEA) capacity at both borders and The Senate proposes a along major, multi-state trade Reauthorization Bill that includes: corridors will be improved by modifications to TEA-21. The 1. S. 1072 replaces the old committee has also addressed Minimum Guarantee Program challenges in the area of of TEA-21 with a new Equity intermodal connectivity by Bonus program to ensure that creating a Gateways initiative, by the FY 2009, no state which includes a funding set- receives less than 95 cents of aside for completion of ‘last every dollar it sends to the mile’ connections from the Highway account of the National Highway System core Highway Trust Fund. program. Inadequate connections between port 2. S. 1072 increases oversight of terminals and highways or how highway trust fund dollars between rail facilities and are spent by requiring project highways are a major factor in
13 CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
freight congestion. Although • Safety – Federal Railroad the bill does not provide for Signal Safety Program separate funding for freight • Transportation Enhancements connections, it does require each state to consider freight • Transportation Enhancements – infrastructure issues. Safety Rest Area Program • Supplemental Transportation 5. S. 1072 makes significant Projects – Railroad Grade progress in streamlining the Crossing Re-Planking Program environmental review and • Supplemental Transportation delivery process. It encourages Projects – Railroad Signal communities and project Maintenance Program sponsors to consider environmental concerns earlier • Supplemental Transportation in the process and provides Projects – Construction tools to reduce or eliminate Landscape Programs unnecessary delays during the • Supplemental Transportation environmental review stage. Projects – Landscape Cost The bill contains provisions to Sharing Program ease the transition for areas • Supplemental Transportation designated non-attainment Projects – Green Ribbon under the new air quality Landscape Improvement standards. The transportation Program conformity process is changed to better align it with air HB 3588 Overview quality planning. SAFETEA provides tools to assist new As at the Federal level, the House non-attainment areas in of Representatives and the Senate determining conformity. of the State of Texas passed separate bills that, in Conference Changes in State Transportation Committee, were resolved into a Legislation single Bill that became an Act in May 2004. While most of the “HB 3588 makes several positive Act’s 20 articles deal with changes in Texas transportation Summary of State Transportation maintaining previous acts, several policy that will benefit the entire Programs that Apply to Wichita articles create or enhance highway Falls management and funding state and all modes of mechanisms. transportation.” The following is a list of TxDOT programs that apply to Wichita Texas HB 3588 is a bill that, by - Ports-to-Plains Newsletter, Falls. integrating existing transportation May/June 2003 policies and providing a means to • Structures Replacement and fund them, addresses the full scope Rehabilitation of transportation issues facing the • Metropolitan Area (TMA) state. This bill represents policies Corridor Projects stemming from the Governor's • Urban Area (non-TMA) Trans Texas Corridor Plan, Corridor Projects Regional Mobility Authorities • Statewide Connectivity (RMA), the Texas Mobility Fund, Corridor Projects bonding authority, TxDOT’s • Safety – Federal Hazard participation in rail operations, Elimination Program statewide coordination of public transportation, innovative toll financing, and transportation fund
14 CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
allocation. In its wide reaching Article 7: Conversion of State scope, Texas HB 3588 relates to Highways – Authorizes conversion the construction, acquisition, of free highways to toll roads and financing, maintenance, transfers to HCTRA and TTA; management, operation, restricts use of toll revenues to ownership, and control of converted project. transportation facilities and the progress, improvement, policing, Article 8: Commercial Driver’s and safety of transportation in the Licenses – Amends laws regarding State. penalties and revocation of commercial driver’s licenses.
Article 1: Trans Texas Corridor – Article 9: Motor Vehicle Sales Tax pertains to the implementation of – Provides for counties to retain an the Trans Texas Corridor plan increasing percentage of motor advocated by the Governor and vehicle sales taxes they collect; TxDOT (discussed below). also increases amount of vehicle registration taxes counties may Article 2: Regional Mobility retain and credit to county road an Authorities – A separate, bridge fund. comprehensive chapter of the Transportation Code (new Chapter Article 10: Driver Responsibility – 370) (discussed below). Establishes a series of fees and surcharges to be assessed for traffic Article 3: Advance Acquisitions of violations (in addition to current Property – TxDOT can acquire fines). options to purchase property on potential routes of new projects, Article 11: Disposition of DPS Fees but cannot condemn property for – Various fees go to the Texas such purposes. Mobility Fund (TMF), however during the first biennium $90 Article 4: TxDOT Rail Facilities – million goes to the general fund Authorizes TxDOT to construct before any TMF funding occurs. passenger and freight rail facilities. Article 12: Additional Court Costs Article 5: Issuance of Bonds by – An additional $30 is assessed for TxDOT – Authorizes the certain traffic violation convictions. Commission to issue bonds payable The municipality or county keeps from revenues deposited to the five percent; remainder is split 67 state highway fund (Note: will also percent to general revenue; 33% to need passage of a constitutional trauma, except that after the amendment). transfer to general revenue hits $250 million, the rest goes to the Article 6: Pass-Through Tolls – Texas Mobility Fund (TMF). “If surplus revenue is generated, the Authorizes the use of pass-through funds can be used to reduce tolls, (“shadow”) tolls; per vehicle Article 13: Statewide Coordination send the excess revenues to the payments from TxDOT to an RMA, Texas Mobility Fund or spend it on of Public Transportation – TxDOT RTA or county toll road authority is to coordinate the provision of other transportation projects in the as payment for construction, various transportation services, and region.” maintenance, or operation of a will provide services required tolled or non-tolled facility on the under certain Health and Human state highway system. Services programs. - TxDOT News Release, January 2002
15 CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
Article 14: Conditional Grant have the ability to build, operate, Program – Amends TxDOT grant and maintain newly created toll program for engineering (or other projects within a designated area. professional) students to make selection based on need and other In 2001, the Texas Legislature factors (rather than race or gender). authorized the creation of Regional Mobility Authorities (RMA’s) Article 15: Texas Turnpike through Senate Bill 342 for the Authority – Generally a cleanup purpose of constructing, operating bill for TTA. and maintaining turnpike projects in the state. In the face of sharp Article 16: Commercial Motor decreases in traditional funding Vehicle Safety Standards – sources and the great number of Establishes and amends processes critical mobility improvements concerning inspection of needed, RMA’s could step in and commercial motor vehicles and provide more flexibility by focusing penalties for violations. local dollars to leverage revenue bonds for major projects and Article 17: Nonrepairable Salvage construct them sooner, rather than Motor Vehicles – Addresses issues later. The enabling legislation concerning certificates of title to outlined the broad powers of salvage vehicles, dealings between RMA’s, and in the fall of 2001, insurance companies and salvage voters in Texas overwhelmingly dealers, and rules concerning supported the concept of an RMA salvage motor vehicle facility as a viable mechanism to develop operators. and implement critically needed mobility improvements. Article 18: Funding of Port Security, Projects and Studies – To create an RMA, one or more Adds provisions regarding port counties may submit a request to security improvements and the Texas Transportation oversight. Commission. Generally, approval will be based on public support for Article 19: Miscellaneous an RMA and how a turnpike Provisions – Addresses a variety of project(s) improve mobility in the issues, including operation of region, as well as on the state’s electric vehicles and scooters, transportation system. ownership and operation of TxDOT facilities, driver’s license fees, and Proposed rules also state that RMA- issuance of bonds by DART. projects must receive final approval by the commission before it Article 20: General Provisions; proceeds to construction. Effective Date – Several of the provisions, including Article 2, have immediate effective dates. If surplus revenue is generated, the funds can be used to reduce tolls, send the excess revenues to the Creation of RMAs: A Potential Texas Mobility Fund or spend it on Funding Source other transportation projects in the A Regional Mobility Authority region. (RMA) is a voter-approved Other eligible transportation financing tool to construct new projects include commercial transportation projects. A regional service airports, public transit mobility authority (RMA) would facilities, Gulf Intracoastal
16 CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
Waterway, state planned highway o Truck lanes - two separate “…analysts predict the new route to projects, passenger and freight rail 13-foot lanes in each cross at Presidio will eventually absorb facilities, and pedestrian and direction up to 4,000 trucks per day. La Entrada bicycle facilities. • Rail component (each has two tracks, one in each direction): al Pacifico is expected to also divert as State and National Transportation much as 30% of the truck traffic from o High speed passenger rail Initiatives California and El Paso ports of entry, o Freight rail alleviating serious congestion. This o Commuter rail would bring deepwater facilities over Trans-Texas Corridor • Dedicated utility zone - water, 500 miles closer than Los Angeles.” electric, natural gas, The Governor’s Trans-Texas petroleum, fiber optic and Corridor Plan outlines a new vision telecommunications for transportation in Texas. • Dimensions - the corridor will Specifically, it provides a design be approximately 4,000 miles concept, identifies four priority in length and up to 1,200 feet corridor segments, details the wide. financial tools that will make it happen and addresses the La Entrada al Pacifico importance of public-private partnerships. Finally, it presents an In June 1997, then-Governor action plan for the first steps in George W. Bush signed House Bill implementation. 2115 designating a 260-mile stretch of land between Lamesa The vision is to advance Texas on a and Presidio as the future route of new multi-use, statewide La Entrada al Pacifico Corridor Figure 1.4: The Trans-Texas Corridor transportation corridor that moves through Texas. Although such a Program (Priority Projects) people and goods safely, efficiently program would increase US / and more reliably, improving our Mexico trade, there was no quality of life. commitment for funding for the corridor in the legislation. The challenge is to prepare Texas for the future by: La Entrada al Pacifico, or Gateway to the Pacific, will connect Texas • Providing a safer, faster and to the Pacific by building a major more reliable means for people highway system from Topolobampo to travel across the state on Mexico’s Pacific Coast through • Reducing congestion Chihuahua City in the State of • Safely transporting hazardous Chihuahua and then through the materials State of Sinaloa. Topolobampo is a • Reducing air pollution deepwater port that receives most of Mexico’s Asian Imports. Thus, a • Creating a transportation highway system that connects to system to support economic the Pacific and enters Texas at growth Source: TxDOT Presidio is expected to substantially There are four elements in the increase truck traffic. Governor’s Trans-Texas Corridor Plan: In Texas, La Entrada al Pacifico extends to Midland/Odessa where • Roadways: it connects with one of 43 the o Passenger vehicle lanes - Ports-to-Plains corridors. This three separate 12-foot corridor extends through the lanes in each direction Panhandle and on to Denver, Colorado. The Texas Transportation
17 CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
Commission recently requested a four shipping days for goods prong be added to the corridor that moving between the Pacific Rim would extend through Abilene to countries and Texas and will spur Wichita Falls to connect with I-44 economic development throughout and from there to the upper West Texas. Midwest (Abilene Urban Transportation Study Metropolitan (Statement of Sandalio Gonzalez, Planning Organization Special Agent in Charge, El Paso Transportation Policy Board Division, Drug Enforcement December 2, 2003. Administration before the U.S. http://www.abilenetx.com/departm House of Representatives ent_agendas/MPO/MPO_Minutes_ Committee on Government Reform 12-2-03_rtf.pdf). Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Before Bill 2115, most US overland Resources, April 15, 2003. trade with Chihuahua has been http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/cng directed through the Texas-Mexico rtest/ct041503.html) border at El Paso-Ciudad Juarez. With the opening of the new route, The cities of Midland and Odessa a good portion of that trade is likely have been greatly involved with the to be diverted through Presidio- project and have established a firm, Ojinaga, the northernmost tip of the Midland – Odessa the new Mexican route and a more Transportation Alliance central link to Texas from the (MOTRAN), to promote La Entrada Figure 1.5: The Connection of La Mexican state. Truck traffic has and the trade and economic Entrada al Pacifico and the Ports- to- typically been routed north to Plains Corridors development benefits that it will Marfa, Alpine and Fort Stockton on bring to the region. MOTRAN is a U.S Highway 67. From Fort combination of cities, counties and Stockton, the traffic could go east private citizens in the Midland- or west on Interstate 10 or continue Odessa area. on to the Midland-Odessa area via Highway 385. From the Midland- One of these benefits is a much Odessa area the traffic could then shorter overland route between go east or west on Interstate 20, or Mexico and the Rio Grande Valley, continue north to Amarillo via San Antonio, Houston, Fort Worth- Highway 349/Highway 87 and Dallas and northeast to the Interstate 27. American Midwest. Because so many Texas and US companies Although the new highway system have Mexican operations, the is not expected for completion until highway system will enable a new 2010, and even then, most of the staging area for trade, and will infrastructure will be in Mexico, benefit companies looking to analysts predict the new route to strengthen trade with Mexico. It cross at Presidio will eventually would also shorten the shipping absorb up to 4,000 trucks per day. times for winter produce sold in the La Entrada al Pacifico is expected heavily populated areas of the to also divert as much as 30% of eastern United States, but now, the truck traffic from California and due to no alternative route through El Paso ports of entry, alleviating Texas, shipped from west-central serious congestion. This would Mexico through Nogales, Arizona. bring deepwater facilities over 500 miles closer than Los Angeles. This Other proponents of the highway completed route will save up to system are private developers in the
18 CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
State of Sinaloa. Since the currently envisioned, La Entrada al highway would pass through Pacifico would connect with Copper Canyon, one of the most Interstate 10, west of San Antonio. scenic areas in Mexico and several However, because of its times the size of the Grand Canyon importance to transportation in area, the developers see several Texas, and because it would join potentials for tourism and eco- existing highway systems that tourism. Developers also directly affect Wichita Falls, it anticipate more activity in the could result in changes of truck maquiladora (define maquiladora) traffic volume. This could happen sector of the Sinaloan economy. if the Ports to Plains program is Generally seen as a border implemented. “One of these benefits is a much phenomenon, maquiladoras also shorter overland route between Mexico are being located deeper within Together, the communities and the Rio Grande Valley, San Mexico’s interior to take advantage along the Ports-to-Plains Trade Antonio, Houston, Fort Worth-Dallas of lower labor costs. However, the Corridor are becoming the and northeast to the American traditional maquiladora facilities Gateway to trade throughout the along the US/Mexico border are Midwest.” nation and with Mexico and anticipating business advantages Canada. The Ports-to-Plains for US companies due to NAFTA Trade Corridor will provide a and La Entrada al Pacifico (Hunt). vast number of benefits for communities along the corridor. Strengthening of trade with Mexico The Trade Corridor will allow is also in part due to a federal for the development of less initiative, Ports-to-Plains. Congress congested ports of entry along has given high priority to 43 the Texas/Mexico border. In corridors. As with one that addition, it will provide connects Denver, Colorado to alternatives to other congested Midland at Highways 349 and 158, corridors that run through major several of these corridors would metropolitan areas. In doing so, connect with La Entrada al Pacifico the trade between Mexico, or function as NAFTA parallel Canada, and the United States routes. The Denver – Midland will continue to dramatically connector is an 830-mile route that increase and all three nations winds through sections of New will continue to see a rise in Mexico and Oklahoma and ends at their regional mobility and Laredo, linking Dumas, Amarillo, economic status. Lubbock, Lamesa, Sterling City, (http://www.portstoplains.com/i San Angelo, Del Rio and Laredo. ndex.htm) The Ports-to-Plains Trade Corridor is The route should provide a viable a planned, multimodal transportation alternative to Interstate 35 for As the Ports-to-Plains corridor corridor including a multi-lane NAFTA trade. implemented, freight traffic leaving divided highway that will facilitate from Dallas to northern the efficient transportation of goods Trade Notes: A Publication of the destinations could route through and services from Mexico, through Office of Carole Keeton Strayhorn, West Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Wichita Falls. The same could be Texas Comptroller of Public true for freight traffic originating in and Oklahoma, and ultimately on Accounts. March 2003 into Canada and the Pacific northern centers. Northwest. (http://www.window.state.tx.us/co mptrol/fnotes/fn0303/from.html) Interstate 69 Source: Ports-to-Plains Website: In all likelihood, La Entrada al http://www.portstoplains.com/index. Pacifico would have no direct htm In 1991, Congress realized a need impact on Wichita Falls of the to designate various highway Wichita Falls MPO. As it is corridors in the National Highway
19 CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
System as having national Travel demand analysis has been significance. This was done conducted on various segments of through the Intermodal Surface the proposed I-69 corridor and has Transportation Efficiency Act revealed that by 2015 “daily travel (ISTEA) of 1991. Corridor 18 was demand … is estimated at 38 given special designation as a million vehicle-km (23 million potential route for a new highway vehicle-miles). A significant linking the United States with amount of this total traffic is Canada and Mexico. Initially, forecast to be commercial vehicles. Corridor 18 went only so far south Trucks are projected to account for as Memphis Tennessee, originating 26 percent of travel on the facility” in Indianapolis, Indiana; however, (WSA/HNTB, 1995). in 1993 this changed to extend as far as Houston, Texas. A second The I-69 corridor covers corridor (Corridor 20) continued approximately 1,600 miles; it is from Houston, Texas to the virtually impossible to treat this as Mexican border. Together, they a single project. In addition, many make up Corridor 18/20. different types of work are needed. Some sections require widening, One common misrepresentation of reconstruction, relocation, or Corridor 18/20 is to call it the development of an entirely new Interstate 69 Corridor. This facility. Moreover, there are misrepresentation is caused by the regional needs and differences that corridor connecting with the dictate the depth and extent of existing Interstate 69 that originates analysis. To accommodate all Figure 1.6: The Entire Anticipated I-69 in Indianapolis and travels north these elements, the US Department Route Through Texas through Michigan to Port Huron, of Transportation has divided the Michigan/Sarnia Ontario, Canada. corridor into 32 Sections of This highway then becomes the Independent Utility (SIU). Ontario Provincial Highway 402 that connects Sarnia to London, Such a format of construction Ontario. At London, Highway 402 means that some sections will be in joins with Highway 401 bound for use long before connecting sections Toronto and further. Ultimately, are completed. Therefore, a set of Interstate 69 Corridor (I-69) has principles and criteria were become the definitive term when established to ensure a seamless describing Corridor 18/20. highway system throughout its course. The importance of I-69 is rooted partly in trade, partly in A given Section of Independent nationalism, and, due to recent Utility may be in place for several events, the need for Homeland years before an adjacent section is Security. When this route is completed and open to traffic. This complete, not only will I-69 serve is the concept of having as an important trade route within independent utility. The process of the world’s largest trading, it will defining these sections involves enable greater internal protection identifying or framing a highway and use of national resources and project that meets a number of assets. To maximize the existing principles and criteria. Interstate 69 facility for use within this vital corridor some FHWA regulations in 23 CFR improvements would be required. 771.111(f) provides three general principles to frame and define each
20 CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
SIU. The use of these principles numbered Route, or major will ensure that alternatives are local facility at or within a evaluated consistently with each limited distance from the other in a meaningful way and terminus. would prevent correlative • Form one terminus for transportation projects to be built each adjacent SIU of I-69. before SIU evaluations are • The SIU should not force complete. Each SIU would acceptance of significantly undergo an Environmental Impact adverse environmental Statement (EIS) to determine a impacts that could be Finding of No Significant Impact avoided while remaining (FONSI). The principles are: within the adopted limits 1. Connect logical termini and be of the I-69 Corridor. of sufficient length to address • SIU termini should be environmental matters on a established considering broad scope; political boundaries and 2. Have independent utility or jurisdictions. independent significance, i.e., • Each SIU should have a be usable and be a reasonable construction cost estimate expenditure even if no that is manageable for the additional transportation specific state(s) so that the improvements in the area are project can be let to made; and, contract over a reasonable 3. Not restrict consideration of time frame. alternatives for other 2. An SIU must permit a proposed reasonably foreseeable action that meets its purpose transportation improvements. and need while having Independent In addition to this, SIU alternatives Utility/Significance from any selection will follow selection planned extensions. criteria. 3. The SIU should not limit nor restrict consideration (in 1. Each SIU should have logical separate studies) of alternatives termini based on factors that for other reasonably include: foreseeable transportation • Be at an Interstate improvements (e.g. committed Highway, at a US or State facilities in the vicinity of the I- numbered route (including 69 Corridor as well as other toll roads) that has regional facilities on an officially connectivity, at a NHS adopted long-range plan). intermodal facility, or at an international border. Furthermore, the logical termini for • Be within the adopted project development are defined as alignment for the I-69 rational termini for (1) a Corridor. transportation improvement and (2) • Each SIU must maintain a review of the environmental the integrity of the full I-69 impacts. The environmental impact Corridor alignment review often covers a broader • Permit the SIU to make a geographic area than the strict connection with the limits of the transportation crossing Interstate improvement. Choosing a corridor Highway, US or State of sufficient length to look at all
21 CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
impacts need not preclude staged construction. (WSA/HNTB, 1999)
Analysis of Impacts to Wichita Falls The federal study of the proposed I- 69 identified 15 sections of independent utility (SIUs) that lie within or connect to the State of Texas. Some of these SIUs are connections from other highways, while most are distinct corridor segments.
None of the I-69 SIUs will directly affect Wichita Falls, however, as with the La Entrada al Pacifica and the Ports-to-Plains program, additional routes could mean increased traffic.
Wichita Falls Passenger Train Station has become the Train Museum
22 CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
OVERVIEW OF EXISTING long range transportation plan, and METROPOLITAN is the second update of the MTP. TRANSPORTATION PLAN Summary and Key Points of the Wichita Falls 2025 Metropolitan The existing plan is a guide on which transportation projects Transportation Plan (MTP) should receive attention. “A dynamic document subject to An objective of the previous Metropolitan Transportation Plan periodic review for modification so Overview (MTP) was to produce various that its effects would be a determinant recommendations for addressing of development.” A Metropolitan Transportation Plan transportation needs and demands. (MTP) provides a vision for the future of a region’s transportation system. Systematic updating of Streets and Highways such plans provide assistance in Thoroughfare Plan the allocation of local, state, and federal funds for the improvements Part of this section described the of the region’s highway, road, bus, Thoroughfare Plan, a “dynamic bicycle, pedestrian, and aviation document subject to periodic systems. This MTP update is for review for modification so that its the City of Wichita Falls’ systems effects would be a determinant of through 2030. development” (Wichita Falls MTP 2000-2025). The plan included An MTP must be consistent with classifications of the two types of various state and federal thoroughfares and was a series of regulations that determine funding color-coded maps that depicted the and approval of transportation MPO’s system of roads and plans, and in accordance with highways. legislation the previous MTP provided consideration of projects The first classification of and strategies that supported thoroughfares was the State On- economic vitality, improved System roads, a selection of transportation safety and mobility highways eligible for State and while promoting efficiencies, Federal funding. Farm-to-Market observed environmental needs and roads, State system Loops and constraints, and improved Spurs, U.S. State Highways, and transportation integration and Interstate Highways comprised connectivity while preserving these “On-System” thoroughfares. existing systems. Typically, the Federal government funds the initial 80 percent of these In 1994, the Wichita Falls projects, while the State provides Metropolitan Planning the 20 percent completion funds. Organization (MPO) adopted its first MTP, the Wichita Falls Off-System roads were the second Transportation Plan 1995 – 2015. classification and included various That plan was updated in January neighborhood, collector, and 2000, and this update continues in arterial roads. Typically, these the tradition of reflection on roads are funded through County accomplishments, future needs, and City budgets, but occasionally and anticipated projects. This plan also use Federal and State funds. is therefore also referred to as a Still, the City is responsible for rights-of-way acquisition, utility
23 CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
relocation, drainage, and other unmet needs remaining. Seventeen costs. of the projects were scheduled in the first ten years of the 25-Year The City has recently updated the Financial Plan while 21 were in the Thoroughfare Plan. The update is second 15 years. The total need discussed in Chapter Five, Area was $82,081,126, but the MTP Transportation Issues. advised that various economic factors could alter this total higher Preservation and Safety or lower over the duration of the In line with Federal legislation, the 25-Year Budget. 2000-2025 MTP identified preserving the existing street and Underpinning this project list were highway network while improving 15 specific areas of need and were safety as a primary goal. identified by the MPO as being major component’s of Wichita In detailing the 2000-2025 MTP, Falls’ transportation plan. Because the MPO identified 17 areas of of their importance, special potential and real congestion. This consideration could be given to identification used TxDOT’s projects that would have direct Recommended Maximum Average impact on these 15 areas of need, Daily Traffic (ADT) Volume scale. provided growth dictated such This initial collection of congestion consideration. areas was pared to 15 with the 1. Sheppard Air Force Base and recognition that, in two areas, other Airports traffic volumes would decline. 2. Multi-Purpose Events Center Still, seven areas would experience (MPEC) substantial increases in volume. 3. Wichita Falls Transit System (Metropolitan Mobility As part of the Long Range Traffic Program) Control Plan, the Signalization 4. Railroads Improvement Plan received from 5. IH 44 an advisory committee comment 6. US 287 and implemented changes to six 7. US 281 (Henry Grace Freeway) intersections. Additionally, a 25- 8. US 82/277 (Kell Freeway) Year Long-Range Plan established 9. BUS 277 (Seymour Highway) six priorities: 10. BUS 287 (Scott Street) 11. FM 369 (Southwest Parkway) 1. Emergency Response 12. SP 325 2. Equipment Updates 13. LP 11 (Beverly Drive) 3. Intersection Safety 14. FM 2380 (Lake Road) 4. Illumination Projects 15. Kemp Boulevard 5. Isolated Intersections 6. Left-Turn Modification All of the specific areas of need listed above and the projects in the Future Roadway Projects, Project 16 categories receive funding as Selection Methodology, and Future they are placed in the State Enhancements and Other Projects Transportation Improvement Plan. The lists of these projects varied For Future Roadway Projects, the from the same list for the 1995- MPO placed 87 projects into 16 2015 MTP, and will vary from the categories and other needs of the list for the 2005-2030 MTP. The MTP Project List. The majority of variations are due to the MTP these projects (55) were in Urban updating process, which specifies, Mobility/Rehabilitation, with 17
24 CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
“as necessary and prudent, projects Wichita Falls MPO neither is a will be reviewed and new projects Non-Attainment area nor is added” (Wichita Falls MTP 2000- expected to become a Non- 2025). Such adjustments of priority Attainment Area. The 2005-2025 would occur when conditions MTP recommended continued make projects either obsolete or implementation of alternative imperative. These conditions transportation strategies, public include: participation, elected official decision-making, and staff A. Existed and forecasted traffic leadership as methods to ensure volumes; Wichita Falls’ high local air quality B. Congestion levels; level. C. Levels of service; D. Estimated construction and rights-of-way acquisition costs; Public Transportation E. Impact on multi-modalism; F. Impact on economic The promotion of public development; and, transportation is a priority area for G. Compatibility with the Texas federal legislation. However, Transportation Plan and the because of the importance placed local communities’ on this priority, three new systems comprehensive plans. in Texas came on line, actually decreasing the amount of funds The Policy Committee of the MPO available to existing programs. retains the right to make MTP This threatened the Wichita Falls priority adjustments when transit program and caused the necessary. MPO to recommend a study “to analyze and report on the future of Transportation Planning and Air transit in the City” (Wichita Falls Quality MTP 2000-2025). This study elaborated the previous Wichita The 2000-2025 recognized that Falls Transit Development Program Federal legislation mandates “the study of 1996 that recommended a evaluation of transportation three-phase development plan. projects on their contribution to The 1996 study recommended in emissions reductions” (Wichita Phase One: Falls MTP 2000-2025). Alternative A. Revision of management forms of transportation greatly aid structure; in this effort, and bike/pedestrian B. Implementation of marketing plans, car/vanpooling, and strategy; promotion of transit use are major C. Adoption of a performance forms of alternative transportation. monitoring system; D. Improvement of maintenance All of these efforts arise from the Practices; and, Clean Air Act of 1970, which set in E. Construction of a downtown motion the National Ambient Air transit center. Quality Standards (NAAQS). These standards require attainment in In Phase Two, the plan various areas of airborne matter, recommended route restructuring, and MPOs that do not attain such and in Phase three the positioning standards must file a “Non- for future growth. Attainment Plan” and may face funding restrictions or federally The City of Wichita Falls also authorized austerity measures. The became a participant in the study
25 CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
of rural transit services. The study Commercial Truck and Rail was expected for completion in Spring 2000 and was coordinated Because growth was projected in through the NORTEX Regional truck and rail services, recognizing Planning Commission. that infrastructure should be increased, specific recommendations were made. The Bicycles and Pedestrians TxDOT noted that flow-through truck traffic had and would The 2000-2025 MTP recognized continue to increase, but reserved the need to continue planning for recommending studying projected bicycle use, both for recreation and increased demand until the Spring leisure and for commuting. By 2002 completion of the elevated 2000-2025, the City had already US 287/IH 44 Freeway. completed three sections of a 26- mile linked trail system. This Within the MPO, there were three system is a perimeter route that the areas where highway-rail grade City is steadily completing. Such a crossing should be improved. Re- route would improve riding planking of intersection would conditions and include constitute these improvements. landscaping, lighting, bridges, Continuation of the TxDOT retaining walls, and benches. The highway-rail signalization program existing plan recommended to improve safety at highway-rail completion by 2020. intersections was also “A 26-mile linked trail system … that recommended. would improve riding conditions and In the 2000-2025 MTP, the includes landscaping, lighting, bridges, provision of sidewalk facilities was retaining walls, and benches.” seen as critical to getting people Aviation out of their automobiles and improving pedestrian conditions. Although public sentiment The City already required encouraged expansion of municipal developers to provide sidewalks in airport services, prevailing and any new construction. The City anticipated volumes did not has also created the Sidewalk provide necessity to recommend Partnership Program for special expansion. Further, the City areas such as low-income reserved decision on continued neighborhoods, the downtown, services until the expiration of the various city parks, high-traffic areas current airport lease in 2009. around public schools, and public facilities. The benefits of this There were no foreseeable changes program are better pedestrian to private facilities, although a environments, beautified feasibility and operations study of neighborhoods, and self- Kickapoo Air Park was expected for empowerment for low-income early 2000. persons. The MTP recommended continuation of the Sidewalk Partnership Program. With continuation of the program, “it is anticipated that by 2020 and 2025 all residents of the City will be able to move about freely within specific areas of the City” (Wichita Falls MTP 2000-2025).
26 CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
Table 1.2: MPO Current Project Report Letting Date by Control Highway Limits Description Contract Amt Year 5-Sep-02 0283-01-013, etc. FM 2380 FM 369 to the Archer C/L Widen to 4-lane undivided $5,134,954.39 section 0283-08-004 FM 2380 Wichita C/L to SH 79
Sum $5,134,954.39 4-Dec-03 0043-17-019 BU 287J In Wichita Falls, Jefferson St. & BNSF Replace bridge and $2,971,051.14 to 0.87 miles E of JCT US 287 approaches
Sum $2,971,051.14 9-Jan-04 0903-03-073 VA Wood Memorial Pk to WFS Museum Sikes Lake Pedestrian and $270,314.50 & Art Ctr to Taft Blvd & Midwestern Bicycle Trail - Phase II Pkwy
11-Feb-04 0043-09-104, etc. IH 44, etc. SP 325 to 8th Street Installation of traffic $522,290.00 management center and cctv 0044-01-084 US 287 8th St to US 281 0156-07-100 IH 44 At SP 325 Interchange
9-Sep-04 0043-09-106, etc. IH 44, etc. At the Maurine Street Overpass Channelization $0.00 0249-11-010 LP 473 At US 82 Overpass 0249-11-011 LP 473 At Holliday Road
Sum $792,604.50 Grand Total $8,898,610.03
MPO Letting History Report Letting Date by Control Highway Limits Description Contract Amt Year 9-July-02 0802-02-057 FM 369 Rhea Road to near FM 2650 Hot mix overlay $2,060,556.95
3-Apr-02 0156-14-015, etc. BU 277A Loop 11 to near McNeil Street Improve Shoulders and $3,376,329.16 drainage; Install traffic signal 0156-14-020 BU 277A At Tanglewood
2-Apr-02 0249-01-033 US 281 Near the Archer C/L to the end of Concrete pavement overlay $5,104,323.10 Holliday Creek Bridge Sum $10,541,209.21 5-Nov-03 0903-03-074 VA Various locations in Wichita Falls Replace signs $303,280.25
9-Oct-03 0044-01-085 US 82 At SH 79 Grading and retainer walls $45,873.00
4-Feb-03 0903-03-069 VA Wood Memorial Park to Wichita Falls Sikes Lake Pedestrian and $919,785.02 Museum and Art Center Bicycle Trail – Phase 1
3-June-03 0043-20-011, etc. BU 287F, etc. Various locations in Vernon Upgrade traffic signals $214,692.84 0146-07-024 US 70 At US 70 and at BU 287F Sum $1,483,631.11 9-Jan-04 0156-04-087, etc. US 277, etc. FM 369 to east frontage road of US Full-depth concrete repair $417,962.44 287 0249-01-037 US 281 On frontage roads, LP 473 to 0.05 miles north of Rathgerber Road Sum $417,962.44 Grand Total $12,442,802.76 Total All $21,341,413.20 Source: TxDOT
27 CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
Progress from Previous Years Scott St), rescheduled to December 2003; Certain projects have been let, • US 82/277, in Wichita Falls, rescheduled or completed during FM 369 to Barnett Road, the 2002 and 2003 fiscal years. rehabilitate the existing These projects and programs are frontage road, rescheduled to from the 2002-2004 TIP. Table 1.2 January 2004; and, provides details of let and current • US 82, in Wichita Falls, bridge projects. The following list notes rehabilitation on right lane when some projects in the list and over US 281 & SH 79, project other projects were completed. rescheduled to September 2007 • IH 44 in Wichita Falls, bridge rehabilitation at 5th Street, let REVIEW OF RELATED in November 1998, completed STUDIES September 2002; • IH 44 in Wichita Falls, bridge rehabilitation at 6th Street, let Update of Socioeconomic and in November 1998, completed Demographic Factors for September 2002; Transportation Modeling • IH 44 in Wichita Falls, bridge rehabilitation at Wichita River, Wichita Falls released its update of let in November 1998, its 2000 study in July of 2004. The completed September 2002; purpose of the project was to • US 281, in Wichita Falls, “update and expand the Archer Co. line to US 287, socioeconomic data and forecasts rehabilitate existing road, for long-range transportation completed November 25, planning for the Wichita Falls 2002; Metropolitan Area” (WSA, 2004). • FM 369, near FM2650 to near The study included 20 areas of Rhea Road, rehabilitate analysis. existing road, project currently under construction, estimated For the update, data was collected completion June 2003; from several sources. • FM 2380, in Wichita Falls, FM • Historical U.S. Census Bureau 369 to Archer Co. line, widen Data (1980, 1990, 2000); to 4-lane undivided urban section, project currently under • Current zoning maps for construction, estimated Wichita Falls; completion December 2003; • Texas State Data Center county • Enhancement Grant – Sikes level estimates and forecasts; Lake Pedestrian & Bicycle Trail and, (Midwestern State University), • U.S. Census Bureau county linked biped trail system, level estimates and forecasts. construction work began April Similar to the 2000 update, in the 2003, estimated completion 2004 update no findings were July 2003; expressed, however several maps • BUS 287 J, in Wichita Falls, depicting various demographic bridge rehabilitation, from shifts and projections of shifts were Jefferson Street to 0.8 miles generated and GIS files necessary east of Junction US 287 (N. for forecasting transportation demand were created.
28 CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
The report is divided into two roadway LOS to be defined by sections: base year estimates and LOS. This allowed the study to methodology, and forecast data focus entirely on intersection and methodology. Three improvements and produced the appendices provide base, 2004, conclusion that any improvement and forecast 2030 data in should include geometric and spreadsheet format. signal control and timing changes. The study found that nineteen The sole purpose of the update is to intersections fell below an LOS of provide data for transportation C. modeling and not social planning. The update is to show which The second finding was that the Transportation Analysis Zones level of fatal traffic collisions at (TAZs) are growing, which are intersections was low. In the three declining, and which are remaining years that were studied, four fatal constant in order to indicate areas collisions were recorded. of current and future transportation need. This led to the third finding that one-way operation in the Wichita Falls Traffic Operations downtown was unnecessary and Study (TOS) that conversion to two-way travel would not cause unsatisfactory In February 2001, the Wichita Falls service from an engineering District of the TxDOT prepared a perspective. Finally, eleven of the Traffic Operations Study (TOS) to: downtown intersections no longer required signalization. 1. Develop traffic count adjustment factors. The study established three 2. Determine levels of services categories of priority based on and collision rates for 190 factors that were safety, specific intersections and 18 operations/LOS, relation to other roadway segments. projects, and relative cost/benefit. 3. Perform an assessment of one- Only one project – Brook Street, way operations in the central realignment for two-way business district. configuration – was determined to 4. Develop conceptual be Category One – Required improvements to remedy Implementation. Nine projects identified capacity or safety were Category Two – Low Cost, deficiencies. and ten were Category Three – 5. Determine planning level Other Projects. estimates of the probable cost of these improvements, Wichita Falls Region: ITS 6. Prioritizing the improvements based on approximate benefit Architecture Workshops to cost ratios. In November 2003 and January The study arrived at findings 2004, the TxDOT District of pertaining to level of service (LOS), Wichita Falls presented a series of collision assessment, one-way workshops on Intelligent operation assessment, and various Transportation System (ITS) conceptual improvements and their Architecture to the Wichita Falls recommended priorities. First, no MPO. The objective of the roadway segments had an LOS workshops was to define what a worse than C. This allowed regional ITS architecture and
29 CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
deployment plan is, identify transportation companies, and stakeholders and stakeholder patrons produced twelve groups, explain the benefits, and conclusions that, while agreeing show how such a plan can be the existing service is a good first integrated into regional planning. step and provides limited service at a satisfactory level, it does not Report on Transportation Needs meet the needs of, nor is it in Wichita Falls and Surrounding extensively used by, seniors and the disabled, particularly in rural Areas areas. Funding levels are an impediment to an effective service, In 2002 Midwestern State there is little cohesive planning University (MSU) College of Health between local governments and Sciences and Human Services service providers, local studied Wichita Falls’ public governments and service providers transportation system to “identify may not understand the barriers, barriers to accessible, affordable and public outreach and education transportation for children, the needs improvement. elderly, and disabled, as well as solutions to overcome these The recommendations of the report barriers” (MSU, 2002). addressed each of these findings. The study area was the city of 1. Coordinate transportation Wichita Falls and the eleven efforts in the urban and rural surrounding counties. The areas. methodology was to meet with 2. Increase community specific representatives of the collaboration regarding health and human care services transportation. sector in Wichita Falls who 3. Develop a media campaign to recommended additional service make community members in agencies and public and private the target area aware of the sector representatives for transportation options available interviews. These participants to them. were interviewed from a 4. Develop a paratransit system standardized questionnaire that for the elderly and disabled solicited qualitative data. A operated by the City of Wichita second strategy put eight pairs of Falls. MSU students onto the transit 5. Develop a nonprofit agency … system to collect personal to provide [to seniors], by responses on timeliness of the appointment, transportation by service, comfort and ease of use, van for medical visits or and assistance by the operator. Of personal business. the 196 questionnaires distributed, 6. Continue collaboration of “While agreeing the existing [transit] 156 (80 percent) were completed. transportation providers in the service is a good first step and provides Thirty-five percent were from users, area through the TxDOT limited service at a satisfactory level, it 26 percent from social service meetings. does not meet the needs of, nor is it agencies, 19 percent each from 7. Develop … an effort to provide City officials and students on the volunteer escorts for frail extensively used by, seniors and the elderly who need assistance … disabled, particularly in rural areas.” bus, and one percent from transit providers. to and from medical visits. 8. Support the development of a This qualitative study of 156 one-call broker system. representatives from social service 9. Consider benefits to the City of agencies, city/county government, becoming a member of the
30 CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
Community Transportation most hazardous areas. The Association of America Accident Potential Zone One (APZ- (CTAA). I) is the next closest and has a significant potential for accidents. Social and socioeconomic issues The Accident Potential Zone Two were the typical barriers to effective (APZ-II) is next zone out and has a transportation and appropriate measurable potential for accidents. solutions. There is no universal measure and • Clients do not own car each zone’s extent depends on numerous local factors, but at • Lack of reliability of pick up Sheppard Air Force Base the full time extent of the accident zones • Lack of sufficiently frequent measures 12,000 feet and 5,000 service during day and night feet. • Difficulty of women taking small children on the bus The Air Force is also very • Bus Service requires transfer. concerned about noise levels and • Bus doesn’t go to specific routinely measures noise contours areas. to advise local planning agencies of • Limited night services potential noise impacts. • Lack of funds of clients The Air Force does not regulate • Need for transportation at adjacent land uses, compatible or unscheduled times otherwise. It does cooperate with • Bus routes not easily available neighboring communities, but to agencies/home considers land use decision-making as a sovereign right of the Sheppard Air Force Base Air community. Therefore, the report Installation Compatible Use Zone only inventories certain Study (AICUZ) incompatible current land uses located within the APZs and noise The purpose of the Air Installation contours that could constitute noise Compatible Use Zone Study impacts. Although the Air Force (AICUZ) program is to promote will not halt neighboring compatible land development in development, and will not force areas subject to aircraft noise and neighboring communities to adopt accident. The U.S. Air Force long-range land use plans, it perceives a responsibility to its strongly urges the adoption of the base’s surrounding communities AICUZ study recommendations. that it will maintain safety, pursue noise abatement, and participate in 1. Incorporate AICUZ policies land use planning efforts. The and guidelines into the existing construction of a new parallel and/or future comprehensive runway in 1992 necessitated an plans of the Cities of Wichita update of the previous AICUZ. Falls and Burkburnett and Wichita County. Use overlay maps of the AICUZ noise The Air Force uses a three-zone contours and Air Force land- approach in determining use compatibility guidelines to compatible neighboring land use: evaluate existing and future clear zone, Accident Potential land-use proposals. Zone I, and Accident Potential 2. Adopt and/or modify existing Zone II. Clear zones are the zoning ordinances and closest to runway ends and are the subdivision regulations to
31 CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
support the compatible land the community” (Wichita Falls, uses outlined in this study. 2000). 3. Ensure height and obstruction ordinances reflect current Air Specifically, the City studied: Force and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) FAR Part 1. The current condition of 77 requirements. Kickapoo Downtown Airport; 4. Amend existing building codes 2. The financial feasibility of the to ensure new construction City purchasing and operating within the AICUZ area has the the Airpark; recommended noise level 3. The economic impact which reductions incorporated into the Airpark has on the City of the design and construction of Wichita Falls and would be these facilities. lost if the airpark is closed; 5. Continue to inform Sheppard 4. The availability of aircraft AFB of planning and zoning storage facilities at other actions that have the potential existing airport facilities in the of affecting base operations. county; and, Develop a working group 5. The comparative cost of representing City planner, building a new general County planners, and Base aviation airport in Wichita Falls planners to meet at least in lieu of the City acquiring the quarterly to discuss AICUZ Kickapoo Downtown Airpark. concerns and major development proposals that The feasibility study, released in could affect airfield operations. 2000, reported that the Capitol
Kickapoo Downtown Airpark Investment Program (CIP) would require, over a ten-year period, “The Kickapoo Downtown Airpark Airport Feasibility Study between $4.3 and $5.9 million to constitutes a major asset to the community complete an overhaul and retrofit in that local aviation enthusiasts, the In 1999, the 1998 proposed of the airpark. However, the study military, and businesses in the area support commercial sale of the Kickapoo also found that the airpark is a best- the airpark and that it accommodates a long Downtown Airpark caused the City case scenario for expansion of history and firmly established regional of Wichita Falls to conduct a necessary aviation services and feasibility study for the City’s facilities. tradition of general aviation.” acquisition of the facility. The impetus for the City considering the purchase stemmed from the 2003 Travel Demand Model potential loss of over sixty based Validation aircraft, plus visiting corporate and general aviation aircraft. The Through preparation of the 2003 Kickapoo Downtown Airpark report of the Wichita Falls Travel constitutes a major asset to the Demand Model (TDM) community; in that local aviation development process, TxDOT enthusiasts, the military, and demonstrated the model is valid. businesses in the area support the airpark and that it accommodates a According to the report, the long history and firmly established model’s validity is determined by regional tradition of general comparing modeled traffic volumes aviation. The City desired to to actual counts on each facility accommodate the airpark and comparing the network. The provide it with “the necessary tools performance statistics are based on to continue to grow and develop in comparing observed versus modeled Vehicle Miles Traveled
32 CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
(VMT). Vehicle Miles Traveled is The purpose of this update is to defined as the number of vehicles review the existing 2025 MTP and times the length of roadway justify it to changes in State and traversed. Overall, the Wichita Federal regulations, particularly Falls 2000 demand model network Department of Transportation. The performed very well, the regional secondary purposes are to identify modeled VMT versus actual VMT and recommend State and Federal was 102%. Comparing VMT programs that could be of benefit percentages by area type and to funding necessary MPO projects, facility type also indicates adequate and to identify changes in local results. In conclusion, the 2000 priorities and new and completed Wichita Falls travel demand model projects since the adoption of the replicates base year travel 2025 MTP. This review covers conditions. major elements discussed in the 2025 MTP, such as basic demographics, existing roadway SUMMARY OF PURPOSE AND conditions, existing and committed NEED transportation projects, and various Although legislation requires traditional and alternative Municipal Planning Organizations transportation systems, and to formalize metropolitan includes new elements of concern. transportation planning, the importance of local transportation An MTP must be consistent with planning is not merely to meet various state and federal mandates. Since the 1970s, regulations that determine funding “Since the 1970s, transportation transportation planning has become and approval of transportation planning has become very complex and very complex and many issues plans, and in accordance with many issues have become linked. It is have become linked. It is no legislation the previous MTP no longer appropriate and acceptable longer appropriate and acceptable provided consideration of projects to consider transportation planning as a to consider transportation planning and strategies that supported economic vitality, improved single element exercise, accomplished as a single element exercise, transportation safety and mobility without varied input.” accomplished without varied input. Comprehensive, coordinated, and while promoting efficiencies, cooperative planning at the local observed environmental needs and level is vital to achieving a constraints, and improved transportation system that fits, and transportation integration and effectively provides for, local connectivity while preserving needs. existing systems.
Purpose Need A Metropolitan Transportation Plan Data projections indicate that (MTP) provides a vision for the Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) future of a region’s transportation within the Wichita Falls MPO system. Systematic updating of should anticipate shifts in such plans provides assistance in population densities through 2030, the allocation of local, state, and the horizon year for this MTP federal funds for the improvements review. Further, the City has of the region’s highway, road, bus, experienced growth in residential, bicycle, pedestrian, and aviation commercial, and industrial land systems. This MTP update is for use that suggests the anticipated the Wichita Falls MPO systems growth by 2030 would be realized, through 2030. and has studied transportation
33 CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
provisions that would alter, through additional capacity and streamlining, the adequacy and efficiency of existing provisions and services. Additionally, the City seeks to consolidate various recommendations from other transportation studies that have occurred since the 2025 MTP.
“The Wichita Falls MPO, acting through the Planning Division staff of the City of Wichita Falls Community Development Department, is responsible for coordinated, comprehensive, and continuing transportation planning in the Wichita Falls Metropolitan Area as required by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21). The original planning document, the Metropolitan Transportation Plan 1995 through 2015 (MTP), was adopted on December 14, 1994. The MTP was based on a 1985 base year non-traditional travel demand model, 2015 projections, and citizen recommendations. An update to the original MTP was completed in December 1999 and adopted by the Transportation Policy Committee on January 24, 2000. The update covered a 25- year period from 2000 to 2025 (Wichita Falls Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2003)3. This update covers the 25-year period from 2005 to 2030.
3 Wichita Falls 2004 – 2006 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). http://www.cwftx.net/MPO/pdf/ WFMPO-TIP-2004-2006- FinalVersion.pdf Accessed July 23, 2004.
34 CHAPTER ONE, APPENDIX – INTRODUCTION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS (TEA LU)
• The House Transportation Committee bill reauthorizes the federal highway, public transportation, highway safety, and motor carrier safety programs for 6 years, from fiscal years 2004 through 2009. • The House Transportation Committee bill provides a total of $375 billion in new funding – a 72 percent increase over the total funding for TEA 21 (1998-2003), and a 52 percent increase over the total funding proposed in the administration’s SAFETEA reauthorization bill. • The House Transportation Committee bill will continue and protect existing U.S. jobs in the transportation sector and related industries. 1.7 million new jobs will be created and sustained by the infrastructure funding increases in the House Transportation Committee bill. • The House Transportation Committee bill increases the minimum guaranteed percentage of return each State will get back from Federal highway formula programs from 90.5 percent to 95 percent by 2009.
COMPARISON OF FUNDING TOTALS BY AGENCY (IN MILLIONS)
AGENCY TEA 21 SAFETEA TEA LU
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION $174,000 $195,060 $298,700
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION $41,000 $45,810 $69,200
FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION $1,300 $2,830 $3,300
NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMIN. $1,700 $3,415 $4,200
TOTAL $218,000 $247,115 $375,400
SOME FUTURE ACTIONS OF CONGRESS ARE ASSUMED IN THIS BILL:
1) Adequate resources will be identified to pay for the increased programs. 2) The ethanol-related losses to the Highway Trust Fund resulting from the 5.2 cents per gallon subsidy and the diversion of 2.5 cents per gallon from the Highway Trust Fund to the General Fund will be addressed.
I CHAPTER ONE, APPENDIX – INTRODUCTION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY PROGRAM 6 YEAR COMPARISON OF FUNDING LEVELS
STATE TEA-21 SAFETEA TEA-LU Alabama 3,341,968,630 3,526,997,745 4,470,648,638 Alaska 1,960,964,286 2,069,120,226 2,593,721,928 Arizona 2,778,946,027 3,050,813,563 4,080,072,991 Arkansas 2,193,453,500 2,300,264,106 2,928,354,204 California 15,273,463,726 16,806,102,784 22,256,986,623 Colorado 2,007,568,401 2,310,409,548 3,384,827,297 Connecticut 2,498,327,427 2,650,466,042 3,305,770,978 Delaware 728,428,392 776,761,974 963,040,353 Dist of Col. 651,044,411 694,574,783 861,163,571 Florida 7,821,137,646 8,588,931,659 11,164,669,016 Georgia 5,910,288,580 6,311,837,624 8,258,233,517 Hawaii 851,748,417 905,582,869 1,126,957,484 Idaho 1,273,863,938 1,348,490,413 1,680,096,168 Illinois 5,563,015,825 5,938,465,409 9,280,674,111 Indiana 3,962,324,182 4,115,342,629 6,054,306,924 Iowa 1,977,325,247 2,096,850,372 2,916,545,479 Kansas 1,927,824,584 2,044,166,050 2,550,620,212 Kentucky 2,912,770,102 3,096,311,332 4,074,292,485 Louisiana 2,670,531,346 2,836,811,485 3,712,658,151 Maine 876,267,325 922,911,414 1,176,558,626 Maryland 2,659,318,115 2,921,336,320 3,796,768,616 Massachusetts 3,090,511,398 3,273,384,855 4,133,729,744 Michigan 5,305,598,517 5,516,553,661 7,714,235,465 Minnesota 2,465,274,809 2,624,693,785 4,681,813,086 Mississippi 2,043,841,261 2,163,511,350 2,837,674,147 Missouri 3,970,096,450 4,117,407,739 5,510,246,551 Montana 1,634,847,150 1,732,598,930 2,161,398,659 Nebraska 1,275,793,358 1,360,439,858 1,788,318,678 Nevada 1,193,301,386 1,272,667,510 1,707,262,086 New Hampshire 851,374,284 904,728,898 1,123,909,888 New Jersey 4,353,183,704 4,748,320,476 6,223,320,571 New Mexico 1,626,229,567 1,725,450,699 2,151,602,815 New York 8,486,587,169 9,057,022,236 11,238,663,508 North Carolina 4,668,385,915 4,999,950,766 6,787,283,085 North Dakota 1,078,988,867 1,151,916,960 1,426,492,639 Ohio 5,779,848,982 6,097,306,161 9,336,150,855 Oklahoma 2,533,581,202 2,709,312,927 3,562,609,050 Oregon 2,038,880,248 2,130,722,602 2,715,952,529 Pennsylvania 8,302,006,159 8,695,859,103 10,859,673,170 Rhode Island 985,963,500 1,041,086,034 1,296,969,807 South Carolina 2,745,246,873 2,938,228,495 3,844,023,965 South Dakota 1,199,921,376 1,252,800,133 1,556,233,157 Tennessee 3,776,320,462 3,953,716,312 5,207,063,330 Texas 12,636,947,044 14,020,986,767 18,708,665,870 Utah 1,296,075,964 1,373,877,505 1,835,329,244 Vermont 752,642,127 802,448,346 995,475,483 Virginia 4,271,063,968 4,495,275,685 6,100,714,221 Washington 2,949,752,201 3,133,868,958 4,247,516,171 West Virginia 1,859,855,804 1,968,305,710 2,463,981,410 Wisconsin 3,277,559,291 3,477,053,055 4,399,217,203 Wyoming 1,149,126,680 1,221,689,996 1,513,131,441 Total Apportioned 167,439,385,823 179,273,733,859 238,765,625,202 Total Allocated 6,560,614,177 15,786,266,141 59,934,374,798 Total Highway Funding 174,000,000,000 195,060,000,000 298,700,000,000
II CHAPTER ONE, APPENDIX – INTRODUCTION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY PROGRAM 6 YEAR COMPARISON OF FUNDING LEVELS
TEA-LU Six-Year FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 State Total
Alabama 548,357,140 610,963,094 676,194,088 726,738,929 774,851,151 803,641,771 878,259,606 4,470,648,638 Alaska 320,784,383 359,150,687 397,496,303 427,208,759 455,491,216 468,734,132 485,640,832 2,593,721,928 Arizona 468,658,233 520,481,385 583,451,995 648,080,922 716,806,206 769,884,499 841,367,984 4,080,072,991 Arkansas 359,426,082 398,306,099 440,832,240 473,784,015 505,149,889 530,512,058 579,769,902 2,928,354,204 California 2,577,989,640 2,839,249,997 3,182,757,582 3,535,311,366 3,910,210,965 4,199,755,501 4,589,701,213 22,256,986,623 Colorado 354,936,655 431,791,197 484,031,595 537,647,734 594,662,208 638,695,943 697,998,620 3,384,827,297 Connecticut 408,763,787 457,747,573 506,620,130 544,489,485 580,536,266 597,414,731 618,962,792 3,305,770,978 Delaware 119,069,947 133,351,459 147,589,059 158,621,196 169,122,379 174,039,429 180,316,831 963,040,353 Dist of Col. 106,458,716 119,244,659 131,976,112 141,841,196 151,231,494 155,628,386 161,241,723 861,163,571 Florida 1,317,650,662 1,424,239,813 1,596,551,930 1,773,401,851 1,961,460,999 2,106,703,882 2,302,310,542 11,164,669,016 Georgia 974,955,359 1,058,130,567 1,180,167,529 1,310,894,585 1,449,907,476 1,557,270,683 1,701,862,678 8,258,233,517 Hawaii 139,336,760 156,048,939 172,709,892 185,619,786 197,908,353 203,662,325 211,008,190 1,126,957,484 Idaho 208,679,753 232,641,628 257,480,190 276,726,580 295,046,681 303,624,845 314,576,243 1,680,096,168 Illinois 910,164,724 1,183,904,829 1,327,139,940 1,474,147,117 1,630,472,008 1,751,205,714 1,913,804,503 9,280,674,111 Indiana 634,893,876 772,327,863 865,768,201 961,669,270 1,063,648,809 1,142,410,212 1,248,482,569 6,054,306,924 Iowa 323,486,286 372,054,038 417,067,117 463,265,605 512,392,279 550,334,065 601,432,375 2,916,545,479 Kansas 315,330,398 353,182,425 390,890,825 420,109,528 447,921,996 460,944,844 477,570,594 2,550,620,212 Kentucky 478,720,896 523,428,592 582,021,437 646,491,902 715,048,679 767,996,830 839,305,045 4,074,292,485 Louisiana 437,509,972 479,269,485 530,439,884 588,591,185 651,007,922 699,213,962 764,135,714 3,712,658,151 Maine 143,534,289 158,641,214 175,578,938 188,703,290 201,253,413 216,155,889 236,225,882 1,176,558,626 Maryland 448,262,819 484,341,185 542,939,361 603,080,708 667,033,976 716,426,718 782,946,668 3,796,768,616 Massachusetts 506,317,788 561,800,294 621,782,299 668,259,912 712,500,654 749,880,244 819,506,342 4,133,729,744 Michigan 848,759,827 984,079,444 1,103,138,616 1,225,333,185 1,355,272,778 1,455,628,445 1,590,782,996 7,714,235,465 Minnesota 403,502,972 597,243,374 669,501,058 743,661,633 822,522,706 883,429,127 965,455,188 4,681,813,086 Mississippi 334,206,818 367,319,368 406,537,133 449,414,684 497,072,547 533,879,932 583,450,482 2,837,674,147 Missouri 637,444,037 711,820,685 787,819,991 873,345,170 965,958,442 1,037,486,038 1,133,816,225 5,510,246,551 Montana 267,266,544 299,287,215 331,241,359 356,001,323 379,569,642 390,605,220 404,693,900 2,161,398,659 Nebraska 209,054,844 234,148,765 259,148,240 282,002,510 311,907,267 335,003,475 366,108,421 1,788,318,678 Nevada 195,084,410 218,474,543 244,026,888 271,057,725 299,801,851 322,001,673 351,899,406 1,707,262,086
III CHAPTER ONE, APPENDIX – INTRODUCTION
TEA-LU Six-Year FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 State Total
New Hampshire 139,901,966 155,626,940 172,242,838 185,117,820 197,373,156 203,111,567 210,437,567 1,123,909,888 New Jersey 728,047,251 793,888,374 889,937,217 988,515,486 1,093,341,913 1,174,302,040 1,283,335,541 6,223,320,571 New Mexico 266,027,852 297,930,792 329,740,114 354,387,862 377,849,365 388,834,927 402,859,755 2,151,602,815 New York 1,389,521,309 1,556,209,119 1,722,361,655 1,851,106,489 1,973,655,100 2,031,036,991 2,104,294,156 11,238,663,508 North Carolina 772,217,345 865,831,202 970,584,072 1,078,095,586 1,192,421,472 1,280,718,273 1,399,632,481 6,787,283,085 North Dakota 176,366,883 197,525,342 218,614,626 234,955,854 250,510,612 257,793,937 267,092,268 1,426,492,639 Ohio 938,157,691 1,190,981,813 1,335,073,135 1,482,959,072 1,640,218,420 1,761,673,832 1,925,244,582 9,336,150,855 Oklahoma 419,279,036 464,770,830 514,393,243 562,568,166 622,225,311 668,300,047 730,351,454 3,562,609,050 Oregon 333,547,969 367,228,940 406,437,050 436,817,819 465,736,424 496,802,200 542,930,096 2,715,952,529 Pennsylvania 1,361,481,676 1,503,730,617 1,664,280,156 1,788,683,455 1,907,099,480 1,962,546,338 2,033,333,124 10,859,673,170 Rhode Island 161,298,734 179,590,415 198,764,832 213,622,307 227,764,722 234,386,736 242,840,795 1,296,969,807 South Carolina 457,881,181 490,369,393 549,696,894 610,586,772 675,336,015 725,343,510 792,691,381 3,844,023,965 South Dakota 196,897,381 215,490,412 238,497,782 256,325,255 273,294,730 281,240,479 291,384,499 1,556,233,157 Tennessee 610,339,579 682,612,375 755,493,183 820,724,142 907,757,255 974,975,151 1,065,501,225 5,207,063,330 Texas 2,162,596,910 2,386,602,482 2,675,346,360 2,971,694,246 3,286,825,466 3,530,209,356 3,857,987,961 18,708,665,870 Utah 210,751,716 236,047,757 262,137,930 291,174,926 322,052,365 345,899,800 378,016,466 1,835,329,244 Vermont 123,073,695 137,842,727 152,559,848 163,963,546 174,818,408 179,901,065 186,389,889 995,475,483 Virginia 693,472,744 778,247,888 872,404,462 969,040,629 1,071,801,859 1,151,166,982 1,258,052,401 6,100,714,221 Washington 481,064,589 541,841,557 607,396,434 674,677,684 746,223,403 801,479,990 875,897,104 4,247,516,171 West Virginia 304,620,645 341,185,617 377,613,147 405,839,357 432,707,098 445,287,590 461,348,600 2,463,981,410 Wisconsin 536,062,166 600,322,709 664,417,655 714,082,219 761,356,531 792,717,293 866,320,795 4,399,217,203 Wyoming 188,015,595 209,522,150 231,892,304 249,226,025 265,725,509 273,451,192 283,314,261 1,513,131,441 Total Apportioned 27,649,231,530 31,236,069,867 34,822,784,867 38,259,665,867 41,861,864,867 44,483,349,867 48,101,889,867 238,765,625,202 Total Allocated 3,380,601,470 8,563,930,133 9,477,215,133 9,840,334,133 10,238,135,133 10,716,650,133 11,098,110,133 59,934,374,798 Total Highway Funding 31,029,833,000 39,800,000,000 44,300,000,000 48,100,000,000 52,100,000,000 55,200,000,000 59,200,000,000 298,700,000,000
IV CHAPTER ONE, APPENDIX – INTRODUCTION
FEDERAL TRANSIT PROGRAM 6 YEAR COMPARISON OF FUNDING LEVELS
STATE TEA-21 SAFETEA TEA Alabama 129,874,561 206,779,789 272,680,045 Alaska 67,771,213 92,910,276 120,183,276 American Samoa 1,017,823 5,707,136 6,556,518 Arizona 243,280,905 396,689,247 531,586,306 Arkansas 67,095,850 128,348,581 164,688,596 California 3,649,749,647 5,098,459,854 7,301,459,988 Colorado 253,670,769 374,899,732 538,259,017 Connecticut 519,932,141 566,681,670 836,380,072 Delaware 48,806,536 61,518,210 79,885,749 Dist of Col. 493,386,811 799,449,404 1,150,577,271 Florida 1,021,502,566 1,398,081,194 1,957,395,680 Georgia 480,078,756 722,211,024 1,078,474,269 Guam 2,670,196 8,919,788 10,441,510 Hawaii 150,656,502 209,165,770 281,475,228 Idaho 33,768,721 71,345,132 92,994,599 Illinois 1,948,658,919 2,371,423,302 3,426,430,255 Indiana 292,532,158 400,353,867 545,737,309 Iowa 95,238,162 150,478,597 201,541,283 Kansas 80,686,659 125,771,285 165,561,523 Kentucky 143,338,376 226,674,617 297,169,279 Louisiana 216,498,178 311,224,793 410,673,207 Maine 32,367,455 61,805,150 78,648,399 Maryland 588,973,991 695,141,502 977,880,940 Massachusetts 1,095,125,759 1,334,912,073 1,903,199,096 Michigan 438,971,263 605,435,292 821,884,800 Minnesota 259,677,667 400,731,798 561,868,686 Mississippi 59,964,884 122,574,544 154,711,929 Missouri 269,487,173 374,821,106 522,961,070 Montana 25,179,235 50,456,354 62,573,117 N. Mariana Islands 1,521,326 8,687,834 11,019,801 Nebraska 62,138,662 93,865,265 125,144,485 Nevada 123,970,825 188,180,771 255,189,239 New Hampshire 34,499,918 62,574,423 81,443,673 New Jersey 1,634,905,009 2,110,428,414 2,984,203,604 New Mexico 66,326,319 112,443,698 140,136,317 New York 4,983,710,283 6,048,182,266 8,571,513,112 North Carolina 235,478,365 420,324,725 554,731,422 North Dakota 23,454,089 44,235,587 56,035,009 Ohio 681,394,150 872,068,164 1,184,125,406 Oklahoma 112,814,830 181,585,726 234,502,122 Oregon 215,827,349 324,679,619 456,881,785 Pennsylvania 1,511,050,590 1,789,374,964 2,498,522,868 Puerto Rico 287,439,699 374,593,186 514,588,120 Rhode Island 72,569,668 77,046,316 106,591,997 South Carolina 105,180,245 185,945,846 243,369,666 South Dakota 20,691,332 45,008,350 55,365,479 Tennessee 196,103,078 309,878,671 411,501,679 Texas 1,099,988,449 1,652,991,749 2,305,533,274 Utah 130,248,067 206,724,579 298,869,737 Vermont 19,513,853 32,891,591 40,346,843 Virgin Islands 2,229,355 7,622,408 8,843,652 Virginia 415,194,856 581,965,745 797,659,962 Washington 626,859,694 858,405,318 1,194,097,972 West Virginia 50,702,416 89,486,388 115,363,627 Wisconsin 272,077,114 363,918,542 487,716,258 Wyoming 15,854,870 31,409,973 38,594,581 Total Apportioned 25,711,707,288 34,447,491,203 48,325,770,705 Discretionary, New Starts and Bus, Formula, 10,288,030,712 11,313,862,797 20,874,229,295 Takedowns, Research, and Administration TOTAL Federal Transit Administration 35,999,738,000 45,761,354,000 69,200,000,000
V CHAPTER ONE, APPENDIX – INTRODUCTION
FEDERAL TRANSIT PROGRAM 6 YEAR COMPARISON OF FUNDING LEVELS
TEA-LU Six-Year State FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Total
Alabama 26,985,419 32,386,096 38,305,626 42,879,811 48,104,091 52,684,659 58,319,762 272,680,045 Alaska 8,752,039 15,792,286 17,723,347 19,211,064 20,897,905 22,373,604 24,185,070 120,183,276 American Samoa 223,948 896,493 992,349 1,050,091 1,144,419 1,190,014 1,283,152 6,556,518 Arizona 56,069,802 62,471,401 74,274,353 83,560,431 93,798,242 103,192,332 114,289,546 531,586,306 Arkansas 14,398,487 19,643,745 23,187,588 25,910,983 29,045,892 31,762,852 35,137,536 164,688,596 California 769,819,736 854,353,691 1,017,939,327 1,147,669,025 1,288,436,401 1,420,072,571 1,572,988,974 7,301,459,988 Colorado 54,315,657 63,012,744 75,072,991 84,586,646 94,999,802 104,643,025 115,943,808 538,259,017 Connecticut 90,015,756 98,464,598 116,973,398 131,588,616 147,532,174 162,270,515 179,550,772 836,380,072 Delaware 8,535,243 9,556,146 11,268,689 12,582,598 14,083,272 15,391,215 17,003,829 79,885,749 Dist of Col. 124,521,353 135,113,423 160,700,324 181,012,903 202,948,266 223,497,423 247,304,933 1,150,577,271 Florida 203,556,188 229,140,771 272,982,804 307,559,137 345,493,378 380,524,522 421,695,069 1,957,395,680 Georgia 101,232,997 126,857,569 150,760,672 169,583,367 190,279,635 209,281,174 231,711,851 1,078,474,269 Guam 582,939 1,369,235 1,544,676 1,663,001 1,827,679 1,933,834 2,103,085 10,441,510 Hawaii 30,798,618 32,979,561 39,276,006 44,248,075 49,668,159 54,711,005 60,592,422 281,475,228 Idaho 8,379,128 11,134,390 13,120,220 14,646,634 16,391,975 17,912,696 19,788,684 92,994,599 Illinois 365,145,204 401,896,580 478,284,479 538,845,327 604,508,397 665,808,503 737,086,968 3,426,430,255 Indiana 56,271,731 64,163,583 76,285,354 85,782,486 96,315,217 105,891,628 117,299,041 545,737,309 Iowa 19,859,016 23,781,694 28,224,844 31,688,661 35,561,245 39,048,973 43,235,868 201,541,283 Kansas 16,865,259 19,622,055 23,238,417 26,039,686 29,208,172 32,017,127 35,436,065 165,561,523 Kentucky 27,702,934 35,158,670 41,668,518 46,717,199 52,436,196 57,505,678 63,683,019 297,169,279 Louisiana 40,986,849 48,564,535 57,549,392 64,590,183 72,429,109 79,529,459 88,010,528 410,673,207 Maine 6,529,428 9,462,027 11,126,643 12,388,676 13,865,153 15,112,081 16,693,818 78,648,399 Maryland 108,115,254 114,678,988 136,502,552 153,747,838 172,551,966 189,998,426 210,401,170 977,880,940 Massachusetts 207,119,671 223,208,961 265,660,276 299,294,131 335,784,959 369,821,368 409,429,399 1,903,199,096 Michigan 84,302,608 96,310,250 114,686,263 129,122,814 145,080,480 159,690,146 176,994,845 821,884,800 Minnesota 57,202,409 65,811,525 78,385,423 88,308,267 99,160,748 109,213,465 120,989,257 561,868,686 Mississippi 12,484,046 18,596,716 21,861,139 24,358,874 27,268,788 29,750,630 32,875,782 154,711,929 Missouri 55,922,954 61,457,846 73,075,405 82,201,163 92,285,195 101,507,065 112,434,399 522,961,070 Montana 5,116,371 7,594,994 8,889,656 9,870,717 11,019,227 11,985,691 13,212,831 62,573,117 N. Mariana Islands 763,824 1,411,246 1,610,522 1,750,414 1,933,064 2,062,556 2,251,998 11,019,801 Nebraska 11,597,490 14,864,366 17,584,940 19,693,032 22,070,760 24,183,692 26,747,695 125,144,485
VI CHAPTER ONE, APPENDIX – INTRODUCTION
TEA-LU Six-Year State FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Total
Nevada 26,547,382 29,974,715 35,658,620 40,108,664 45,038,967 49,533,916 54,874,357 255,189,239 New Hampshire 7,332,328 9,741,938 11,490,362 12,823,238 14,363,231 15,685,787 17,339,117 81,443,673 New Jersey 332,795,357 349,284,358 416,131,160 469,190,971 526,563,840 580,356,085 642,677,189 2,984,203,604 New Mexico 13,097,424 16,736,550 19,738,826 22,062,288 24,701,829 27,026,846 29,869,978 140,136,317 New York 940,422,565 1,005,212,519 1,196,343,424 1,348,051,265 1,512,163,073 1,665,776,764 1,843,966,067 8,571,513,112 North Carolina 54,728,548 65,267,758 77,570,408 87,158,185 97,921,662 107,582,270 119,231,139 554,731,422 North Dakota 4,825,595 6,795,031 7,958,594 8,840,802 9,868,081 10,737,440 11,835,061 56,035,009 Ohio 125,051,958 138,834,053 165,268,313 186,100,053 208,980,456 230,061,583 254,880,947 1,184,125,406 Oklahoma 26,145,839 27,794,033 32,909,222 36,877,626 41,368,695 45,351,958 50,200,589 234,502,122 Oregon 48,554,774 53,603,899 63,790,753 71,817,398 80,623,112 88,748,356 98,298,265 456,881,785 Pennsylvania 279,382,670 293,366,661 348,945,904 392,930,711 440,798,098 485,273,634 537,207,860 2,498,522,868 Puerto Rico 48,792,118 61,382,772 72,364,491 81,039,337 90,631,916 99,398,307 109,771,300 514,588,120 Rhode Island 12,819,879 12,692,404 14,998,340 16,779,210 18,795,894 20,576,866 22,749,282 106,591,997 South Carolina 21,925,232 28,874,619 34,175,781 38,265,143 42,941,746 47,034,200 52,078,177 243,369,666 South Dakota 4,549,623 6,734,470 7,874,969 8,737,408 9,748,043 10,596,009 11,674,581 55,365,479 Tennessee 42,011,342 48,523,008 57,604,554 64,671,883 72,625,547 79,737,446 88,339,240 411,501,679 Texas 237,428,567 270,188,927 321,656,318 362,300,689 406,861,398 448,080,420 496,445,524 2,305,533,274 Utah 29,607,078 35,026,167 41,707,204 46,976,471 52,740,081 58,083,427 64,336,386 298,869,737 Vermont 3,054,787 4,964,863 5,776,138 6,374,357 7,101,601 7,679,677 8,450,206 40,346,843 Virgin Islands 452,419 1,184,182 1,322,545 1,412,876 1,544,615 1,622,891 1,756,543 8,843,652 Virginia 83,616,451 93,690,995 111,435,880 125,398,286 140,760,352 154,861,235 171,513,210 797,659,962 Washington 131,813,743 139,742,383 166,502,336 187,693,930 210,722,931 232,213,842 257,222,550 1,194,097,972 West Virginia 10,541,340 13,856,921 16,300,277 18,165,194 20,336,435 22,187,069 24,517,731 115,363,627 Wisconsin 55,213,961 57,108,865 68,032,219 76,633,720 86,085,523 94,801,035 105,054,896 487,716,258 Wyoming 2,988,466 4,762,069 5,532,346 6,100,642 6,790,504 7,339,330 8,069,690 38,594,581 Total Apportioned 5,117,871,804 5,675,100,347 6,749,845,181 7,598,662,196 8,526,207,597 9,384,914,324 10,391,041,061 48,325,770,705 Other Discretionary Programs, 2,108,128,196 2,524,899,653 2,950,154,819 3,301,337,804 3,673,792,403 4,015,085,676 4,408,958,939 20,874,229,295 Research, and Administration Grand Total 7,226,000,000 8,200,000,000 9,700,000,000 10,900,000,000 12,200,000,000 13,400,000,000 14,800,000,000 69,200,000,000
VII CHAPTER ONE, APPENDIX – INTRODUCTION
CONGESTION RELIEF
PROBLEMS: • Annually, congestion costs American drivers: • $67 billion in lost productivity and wasted motor fuel. • 3.6 billion hours of delay each year. • 5.7 billion gallons of wasted motor fuel. • Congestion costs the averaged traveler who drives during peak periods $1,160 a year. • The average driver is losing more than a week and a half of work (62 hours a year) sitting in gridlock. • Traffic congestion affects 33 percent of all travel on America’s major roadways. RESPONSE: The House Transportation Committee bill creates a Congestion Relief Program which requires states to focus resources on the congestion problems on their roadways. • The House Transportation Committee bill’s Congestion Relief Program implements new state spending requirements for projects that increase motor vehicle travel reliability, maximize roadway capacity and efficiency, and remove bottlenecks. • The House Transportation Committee bill establishes a linkage between the existing Congestion Management Analysis and what projects get built. • The House Transportation Committee bill establishes time periods for completion of Congestion Relief projects. • The House Transportation Committee bill ensures that states utilize Congestion Relief technologies to make roadway travel safer and more reliable. • The House Transportation Committee bill Congestion Relief provisions will help highway managers squeeze more capacity from our existing highway investments while empowering them to build projects and conduct analyses that will also recapture unused capacity.
VIII CHAPTER ONE, APPENDIX – INTRODUCTION
SAFETY
PROBLEMS: • More than 42,000 Americans are killed and 3.3 million are seriously injured each year on the Nation’s highways. • Nearly 1/3 of all fatal crashes each year are caused by substandard road conditions and roadside hazards. • Motor vehicle crashes cost the United States $231 billion annually, including $21 billion from Federal and State tax revenue. RESPONSE: • The House Transportation Committee bill creates a new core program for highway safety infrastructure improvements with funding levels more than double the levels in TEA 21. • The House Transportation Committee bill creates a new High Risk Rural Road Safety Improvement Program, which targets funding for safety improvements on rural two-lane roads. About 61 percent of all highway-related fatalities occur on rural roads. • The House Transportation Committee bill provides a 66 percent increase in funding for NHTSA highway safety formula grants to support a full range of state safety programs including, impaired driving programs, occupant protection programs, motorcycle safety, police traffic services and roadway safety. • The House Transportation Committee bill provides $915 million in incentives to states to strengthen their occupant protection programs. TEA 21 provided $68 million over the life of the bill for these activities. • The House Transportation Committee bill creates a new Safe Routes to School program which provides $1.5 billion over six years in formula funding to states to encourage communities to adopt strategies and fund projects designed to allow children to walk and bike to school safely. • The House Transportation Committee bill provides $885 million in incentive grants to help states combat impaired driving. In addition, $60 million is provided for national high visibility enforcement campaigns such as “Click it or Ticket” and “You Drink, You Drive, You Lose”. • The House Transportation Committee bill provides $1.558 billion in State motor carrier safety grants, including the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP), Border Enforcement grants, Commercial Driver's License grants, Performance and Registration Information System Management grants, and State Data Improvement Grants. These grants will promote State enforcement of and compliance with Federal Motor Carrier safety regulations.
IX CHAPTER ONE, APPENDIX – INTRODUCTION
FREIGHT MOBILITY
PROBLEMS: • In 2002, 8.9 billion tons of freight – at a value of more than $5 trillion – was transported by highway. From 1990 to 2000, U.S. truck travel increased by 38 percent. In the next 20 years, truck travel is expected to increase 90 percent due to an expanding economy and the increased reliance on just-in-time delivery. • Freight intermodal connectors – the public roads leading to major intermodal facilities – represent a vital link in the national intermodal freight network. However, these connectors are twice as likely to have a deficient rating than other non-Interstate routes. RESPONSE: • The House Transportation Committee bill funds five programs that are specifically designed to improve the movement of freight. • The House Transportation Committee bill provides close to $2 billion in funding to border states for highway projects that will improve the safe and efficient movement of people and goods at or across the border between the United States and Mexico and the United States and Canada. • The House Transportation Committee bill provides $3 billion in additional funding over six years to states for improvements on freight intermodal connectors. This funding will facilitate and support improvements to public roads leading to and from major intermodal facilities. • The House Transportation Committee bill creates a new program to fund projects of regional and national significance. This program is designed to fund projects that will have a significant impact on the movement of goods and people beyond the immediate local area of the project. • The House Transportation Committee bill provides $5 billion over six years to fund a National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement program. This program is designed to fund regional and multi-state corridor projects that will improve mobility and economic growth in areas underserved by existing highway infrastructure. • The House Transportation Committee bill creates a new program to fund the construction of dedicated truck lanes. Projects funded from this program will improve the safe and efficient movement of freight by separating truck traffic from traffic in regular lanes. • The House Transportation Committee bill provides $150 million to complete the core deployment and to encourage the expanded deployment of the Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks (CVISN) program. The CVISN program is designed to improve commercial motor vehicle efficiency by allowing motor carriers to by-pass safety inspections and weigh stations, based on their safety records, which allows for the vehicle to avoid downtime during roadside inspections.
X CHAPTER ONE, APPENDIX – INTRODUCTION
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
PROBLEMS: • In many U.S. cities, public transportation infrastructure is not keeping up with demand. From 1996 to 2001, public transit ridership grew 21 percent. • Public transportation provides vital mobility to seniors, individuals with disabilities, and families with only one car or no car – but in 40 percent of U.S. counties, there is no public transportation system. • The Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund, which provides 80% of the funding for public transportation programs, is drawing down its balance faster than actual spending would dictate because of an accounting problem. If this problem is not addressed, the MTA balance will go below zero by 2007. • Highway congestion is a growing problem in nearly every part of the country. If public transportation was unavailable and people were forced to drive, congestion on our nation’s highways would be worse than it is today. RESPONSE: • The House Transportation Committee bill increases funding to meet public transportation infrastructure needs. The DOT Conditions & Performance report shows that 36 percent of the nation’s urban rail vehicles and maintenance facilities and 29 percent of the nation’s bus fleet and maintenance facilities are in substandard or poor condition. • The House Transportation Committee bill provides $69.2 billion for transit programs, all guaranteed. This is a 92 percent increase in guaranteed funding. TEA 21 authorized $41 billion for transit programs, of which $36 billion was guaranteed funding. • The House Transportation Committee bill increases the percentage of formula funding for public transportation in rural areas (towns of less than 50,000 population). Total 6-year funding for rural public transportation more than doubles, from $1.25 billion in TEA 21 to $2.78 billion in the House Transportation Committee bill. • The House Transportation Committee bill strengthens public transportation services for individuals with disabilities by increasing the elderly and disabled formula program and authorizes President Bush’s New Freedom Initiative, which provides funds for disabled transportation activities in areas where these services are not available, or which go beyond the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. • The House Transportation Committee bill addresses the drain of budgetary resources from the Mass Transit Account by fixing the accounting problem created by each Federal Transit Administration program being split-funded between the trust fund and the general fund.
XI CHAPTER ONE, APPENDIX – INTRODUCTION
NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
PROBLEMS: • The Interstate System is almost 50 years old. • 32 percent of our major roads are in poor or mediocre condition. • 29 percent of our bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. • 36 percent of the nation’s urban rail vehicles and maintenance facilities are in substandard or poor condition. • 29 percent of the nation’s bus fleet and maintenance facilities are in substandard or poor condition. • According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, the combined spending of all levels of government for the existing infrastructure should be $106 billion annually for highways and $20.6 billion for transit. • Highways: In order to reach that investment level by 2009, the federal share of highway investments over the next six years should be roughly $40 billion in 2004 growing to $60 billion in 2009. • Transit: In order to reach that investment level by 2009, capital public transportation grants should reach $12.8 billion, with an additional $1billion for operating grants, research, planning and administrative costs. • It is difficult for States and localities to dedicate adequate resources to large-scale infrastructure projects, especially those that have significant regional or national significance but are of more limited local benefit. RESPONSE: • The House Transportation Committee bill increases investment in transportation infrastructure to levels that will allow States and localities to not only maintain their roads, bridges, and transit systems, but to improve them. • The House Transportation Committee bill grows highway funding from $39.8 billion in 2004 to $59.2 billion in 2009; public transportation funding grows from $8.2 billion in 2004 to $14.8 billion in 2009. • The House Transportation Committee bill authorizes a new $17.6 billion “Projects of National and Regional Significance” program to help States pay for high cost highway projects that have significant national or regional benefits.
XII CHAPTER ONE, APPENDIX – INTRODUCTION
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
• For every $1 billion invested in federal highway and transit spending, 47,500 jobs are created or sustained. • The House Transportation Committee bill will create and sustain 1.7 million new jobs throughout the nation. • Transportation and Transportation-related industries (e.g., auto and aircraft manufacturing) employed 11.7 million people in 2000, 8.9 percent of the total labor force. • Highway and transit investments stimulate economic activity. They increase productivity by decreasing time spent on the road, encouraging new development, and increasing property values. • Transportation infrastructure generates up to a 6-to-1 net return on investment. • For every $1 billion in highway and transit expenditures, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will increase by $1.75 billion, for a “multiplier effect” of 1.75. • Increased transportation investment improves freight mobility -- More than 67 percent of the nation’s freight moves on highways, an annual value to the economy of more than $5 trillion. • For every $1 billion in highway and transit expenditures, disposable income will rise by $779 million and consumption will rise by $592 million. • Transportation generated $126 billion in 2000 federal, state, and local tax revenues for transportation trust funds.
XIII CHAPTER ONE, APPENDIX – INTRODUCTION
Total Jobs Generated and Sustained by Transportation Equity Act: a Legacy for Users Transportation sector jobs generated and sustained by highway and transit program funding levels in TEA-LU, as introduced
State 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Alabama 27,329 30,559 33,939 36,557 39,090 40,676 44,488 Alaska 15,653 17,579 19,493 20,975 22,398 23,097 23,986 Arizona 24,925 27,690 31,242 34,753 38,504 41,471 45,394 Arkansas 17,757 19,853 22,041 23,736 25,374 26,708 29,208 California 159,021 175,446 199,533 222,442 246,936 266,942 292,728 Colorado 19,439 23,503 26,557 29,556 32,759 35,309 38,662 Connecticut 23,692 26,420 29,621 32,114 34,583 36,085 37,929 Delaware 6,061 6,788 7,546 8,132 8,702 8,998 9,373 Dist. of Col. 10,972 12,082 13,902 15,336 16,824 18,008 19,406 Florida 72,257 78,536 88,803 98,846 109,580 118,143 129,390 Georgia 51,119 56,287 63,219 70,323 77,909 83,911 91,845 Hawaii 8,081 8,979 10,069 10,919 11,760 12,273 12,901 Idaho 10,310 11,579 12,854 13,840 14,793 15,273 15,882 Illinois 60,577 75,326 85,758 95,617 106,162 114,808 125,917 Indiana 32,830 39,733 44,748 49,754 55,098 59,294 64,875 Iowa 16,309 18,802 21,151 23,510 26,028 27,996 30,622 Kansas 15,779 17,708 19,671 21,192 22,664 23,416 24,368 Kentucky 24,055 26,533 29,625 32,927 36,456 39,211 42,892 Louisiana 22,729 25,072 27,929 31,026 34,363 36,990 40,477 Maine 7,128 7,985 8,869 9,552 10,218 10,985 12,014 Maryland 26,428 28,453 32,273 35,949 39,880 43,055 47,184 Massachusetts 33,888 37,288 42,154 45,959 49,794 53,186 58,374 Michigan 44,320 51,319 57,847 64,337 71,267 76,728 83,969 Minnesota 21,884 31,495 35,525 39,519 43,780 47,151 51,606 Mississippi 16,468 18,331 20,349 22,504 24,906 26,772 29,275 Missouri 32,935 36,731 40,893 45,388 50,267 54,102 59,197 Montana 12,938 14,577 16,156 17,379 18,553 19,123 19,851 Nebraska 10,481 11,828 13,145 14,331 15,864 17,061 18,661 Nevada 10,528 11,801 13,285 14,780 16,380 17,648 19,322 New Hampshire 7,855 8,727 9,402 10,057 10,393 10,819 6,994 New Jersey 50,390 54,301 62,038 69,241 76,946 83,346 91,486 New Mexico 13,258 14,947 16,600 17,881 19,121 19,753 20,555 New York 110,672 121,668 138,638 151,960 165,576 175,599 187,542 North Carolina 39,280 44,227 49,787 55,350 61,291 65,944 72,146 North Dakota 8,607 9,705 10,762 11,580 12,368 12,755 13,249 Ohio 50,502 63,166 71,266 79,280 87,837 94,607 103,556 Oklahoma 21,158 23,397 25,997 28,474 31,521 33,898 37,076 Oregon 18,150 19,990 22,336 24,160 25,952 27,814 30,458 Pennsylvania 77,941 85,362 95,628 103,627 111,525 116,271 122,101 Rhode Island 8,271 9,133 10,154 10,944 11,712 12,111 12,616 South Carolina 22,791 24,664 27,734 30,820 34,118 36,688 40,127 South Dakota 9,569 10,556 11,703 12,590 13,445 13,862 14,395 Tennessee 30,987 34,729 38,622 42,056 46,568 50,099 54,807 Texas 114,001 126,198 142,358 158,365 175,450 188,969 206,836 Utah 11,417 12,876 14,433 16,062 17,803 19,189 21,012 Vermont 5,991 6,783 7,521 8,091 8,641 8,910 9,255 Virginia 36,912 41,417 46,732 51,986 57,597 62,036 67,904 Washington 29,112 32,375 36,760 40,963 45,455 49,100 53,823 West Virginia 14,970 16,865 18,711 20,140 21,520 22,205 23,079 Wisconsin 28,086 31,228 34,791 37,559 40,253 42,157 46,140 Wyoming 9,073 10,179 11,278 12,128 12,945 13,338 13,841 Apportioned 1,556,437 1,753,050 1,974,470 2,178,040 2,393,203 2,558,512 2,778,184 Allocated and discretionary 290,211 539,596 579,978 623,838 660,908 743,033 780,382 programs, projects, etc. Total 1,846,649 2,292,647 2,554,447 2,801,878 3,054,111 3,301,545 3,558,565
XIV CHAPTER ONE, APPENDIX – INTRODUCTION
WHAT’S NEW IN THE HOUSE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE BILL?
EQUITY • All States are guaranteed a 95% minimum percentage return from highway formula programs by 2009. SAFETY INFRASTURCTURE • A $7.5 billion safety infrastructure construction program directed toward rail/highway crossings and the elimination of road hazards. HIGH-RISK RURAL ROADS SAFETY IMPROVEMENT • A $1.5 billion formula program for construction and operational improvements on rural roads selected to provide highest safety benefits. FREIGHT INTERMODAL CONNECTORS • A $3 billion formula construction program targeted at improving road connections to and from freight facilities. COORDINATED BORDER INFRASTRUCTURE • A $2 billion formula program aimed at border regions to improve infrastructure facilities, highways and operational improvements to facilitate motor vehicle and freight transportation. CONGESTION RELIEF • Targeted improvements within congested urban transportation management areas through existing Federal highway apportionment programs. PROJECTS OF NATIONAL AND REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE • A $17.6 billion merit-based discretionary grant program to address large and expensive infrastructure projects that have national or regional benefits. SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL • A $1.5 billion formula program for states to encourage communities to adopt strategies and fund projects designed to allow children to walk and bike to school safely. HIGHWAYS FOR LIFE • A $750 million pilot program designed to advance innovative approaches to producing longer lasting highways. SMALL STARTS PROGRAM • A $1.35 billion discretionary capital transit grant program for new fixed guideway systems, including Bus Rapid Transit, streetcar, and commuter rail projects. (Federal grant cannot exceed $75 million.) NEW FREEDOM INITIATIVE • An $820 million formula program that reaches beyond existing transit programs to provide public transportation for people with disabilities, especially to get to work. TRANSIT INTENSIVE PROGRAM • A $255 million formula program that recognizes public transit systems in small cities that are exceeding industry averages in providing transit service to their communities. COMMERCIAL DRIVERS LICENSE GRANT PROGRAM • A $139 million grant program over six years intended for the State licensing agencies to improve their commercial driver’s license programs.
XV CHAPTER ONE, APPENDIX – INTRODUCTION
DEDICATED TRUCK LANES • A $1.5 billion program to fund the construction of dedicated truck lanes to improve the safe and efficient movement of freight by separating truck traffic from traffic in regular lanes UNIFORM PLANNING TITLE • The House Transportation Committee bill will combine highway and transit planning and project delivery provisions into one uniform program under chapter 52 of title 49, United States Code. BORDER SAFETY IMPROVEMENT GRANT PROGRAM • This grant program provides $203 million over six years to ensure enhanced State enforcement activities at the borders with Canada and Mexico.
XVI