1

The Federal ProgramSAFETEA-LU and Beyond

Presented By:

Sandy StraehlTransportation Planning Administrator

March 2, 2006

2

Discussion Topics

– MONEY• The Donor / Donee Dynamic

• Federal Highway Trust Fund

• Authorization vs. Appropriations

• Earmarks and Allocations

– Programs• State

• Federal Program Changes–

3

Risk andUncertainty

4

Importance of Highway Program to Montana

• For Every $1.00 collected in Federal Fuel Taxes in Montana – the state received about $2.25

• A $1.00 in state fuel tax leverages about $6.50 in federal highway funds.

• 47.1 jobs are sustained for every $1 million in highway investments ---- about 16,000 jobs annually

• SAFETEA-LU – $181.9 billion (’05 – ’09 hwys)

• Montana’s apportionments $1.775 billion (about 30% increase over TEA-21)

5

Donor / Donee

Donors• Fewer $$ back than in

– Texas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan..about 21

– TEA-21 guaranteed

90.5% of % contribution

– SAFETEA-LU

Guaranteed 91% of %

Donee• More $$ back than in• 2 classes

– Protected % share• Montana, WY, ID,

NV, ND, SD, NM

– Protected Ranges• New York, New Jersey,

6

$5.0

$50.0

$50.8

$80.3

$0 $20 $40 $60 $80

Montana

Michigan

Ohio

Florida

In Millions

Millions Generated For Each Cent of State Fuel Tax

$1.92$2.25

$2.46

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

Michigan Florida Ohio

Fuel Tax Rate Need for Montana to Match Revenue Generated in these States

Fue

l Tax

per

Gal

lon

Source: 2003 Highway Statistics Table MF-12IT; Gasoline Tax Rates

70% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Florida

Arizona

Texas

US Average

Pennsylvania

Missouri

Georgia

Mississippi

Iowa

Montana

Rural Highway Travel as a Percentage of Total Travel

Source: 2003 Highway Statistics Table PS-1

90

94

90

90

94

94

90

94

90

90

90

9494

15

15

90

90 15

15

90

15

15

15

15

90

90

25

25

Seattle

Denver

Chicago

Idaho Falls

Salt Lake City

Las Vegas

San Diego

Los Angeles

CANADA

MEXICO

Minneapolis

Montana’s Transportation System serves as a crucial bridge across the nation.

8

The distance across Montana is greater than the distance between Washington D.C. and Chicago.

VA

IL

Chicago

D.C.

9Source: 2003 Highway StatisticsTable PS-1

Montana is huge in land area - and sparse in population

Montana aLand Area Population

145,552 918,000(Square Miles)

Northeastern StatesLand Area Population

CTMAMENHNYRI

VT

Total

4,8457,840

30,8628,968

47,2141,0459,250

3,460,0006,433,0001,299,0001,139,000

19,158,0001,048,000

619,000

110,024 33,156,000

(Square Miles)

Montana

10

Per Capita Contributions to State and Federal Highway Trust Funds

$358.73

$312.22

$250.05$237.02 $234.94

$206.24

$151.87

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

Montana South Dakota Pensylvania Ohio Arizona Rhode Island New York

US Average

US Average$252.09

* Includes contributions for Highways, Mass Transit and State Tax Receipts. 2003 Hwy Stat tables FE-9 & MF-1

*

11

Discuss How the Federal Formula Works

12

IM formula attributes $$

+ NH Formula attributes

+ Subsequent Formula programs accumulate to state total

= Sum of programs is compared to Equity Bonus Guarantee and funds are added

Three types of Equity Bonus Guarantees:

Donor % guarantee return on % contributed to trust fund

Eastern Donee % min/max growth

Western Donee Locked % guarantee (Montana!)

+ Below the Line Earmark Project funds

Formula Funding Program

13

Comparison of Quality of GuaranteesAnnually 1% of the Highway Program = about $345 - $360 m

StateProgram

Share

Rate of Return(on trust fund contribution)

Donor

Ex: Indiana

.02341 to

.02491

90.5% to 92%

Eastern Donee

Ex: New York

.048256 to

.044688

114.04% to

109.61%

Western Donee

Ex: Montana

.009758 219.23% to 227.10%

14

% Program Lock Essential for Montana’s Program

• 18 states are protected under SAFETEA-LU

• % share of program will not degrade

• State share protected for:– Low population density (40 persons/sq mile)– High Federal Land Ownership (25% or greater land area)– Low population ( < 1,000,000)– Low median household income (< $35,000)– High Interstate Fatality Rate

15

Obligation Limitation Impact on MDT’s Core Program

Apportionment

FY 2006 Apportioned Funds = $339,067,668Less 30% High Priority Projects = $9,876,000Core Project Program Apportionments = $329,191,668(IM, NHS, STP, BR, CMAQ, Safety, Rec Trails, Borders Safe Routes 2 School)

Obligation Limitation – 85% of Apportioned

FY 2006 Ob Limit (.85* $339.0 million) = $288,207,517Less 30% High Priority Projects (assume 100% funded) = $9,876,000Core Program Obligation Authority = $278,331,517

(Sec 1702 Earmarks)

For ComparisonFY 2003 Obligation Authority for Core Programs was $277 million

*

Notes:* Approximately 70% of the projects named for Montana in Section 1702 were from MDT’s Core Program categories.

*

16

260

280

300

320

340

360

380

400

420

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Apportionment Ob Limit FY 2003 Ob Limit

Mil

lion

s

SAFETEA-LU

SAFETEA-LU Funding EstimatesLittle Actual Program Growth in Spendable Dollars

Notes: Obligation limitation is 85% of Apportionment.Years beyond FY 2009 estimates based on Highway Trust Fund balance projections

FY 2003

SAFETEA-LU Spendable Dollars

17

Discuss Earmarks

Below the Line& Above the Line

18

Discuss Overlay of Federal and State Program

19Distribution Guided by State Law

Surface TransportationProgram (STP)

Surface TransportationProgram (STP)

Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement

(CMAQ)

Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement

(CMAQ)

National HighwaySystem (NHS)

National HighwaySystem (NHS)

InterstateMaintenance (IM)

InterstateMaintenance (IM)

Bridge(HBRRP)Bridge

(HBRRP)

Federal Funding Category

State Funding Category

Distribution Guided by Policy or Agreement

Funding Flow for Federal Transportation FundsFunding Flow for Federal Transportation Funds

Rural & Elderly & Disabled Transit

Capital(Sections 5311/5310)

Rural & Elderly & Disabled Transit

Capital(Sections 5311/5310)

Urban Transit (Section 5307)Urban Transit (Section 5307)

Transfers allowed between categories in accordance with Federal lawsMontana Transportation Commission

Secondary HighwayProgram

Urban HighwayProgram

Districts

15 Urban Areas(Pop. >5,000)

Primary HighwayProgram

Enhancement (10% of STP)

Hazard Elimination(10% of STP)

CTEP(Distributed by

formula)

StatewideDistribution

Financial Districts

Missoula

Montana Air & CongestionInitiative (MACI)

-Guaranteed

-Discretionary

AuthorizationSafe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users

(SAFETEA-LU)

Apportionment & AnnualAppropriation Act

(Obligation Limitation)

Montana Department of TransportationJanuary 2006

StatewideDistribution

StatewideDistribution

Distribution Guided by Federal Law

Urbanized Areas (>50,000)

Urbanized Areas (>50,000)

-Great Falls -Billings

Safe Routes to School SAFETEA-LU

Section 1404

Safe Routes to School SAFETEA-LU

Section 1404

StatewideDistribution

Coordinated Border Infrastructure

Program SAFETEA-LU Section 1303

Coordinated Border Infrastructure

Program SAFETEA-LU Section 1303

Within 200 Miles of Border-High Volume

NH Routes

Urbanized Planning

Support (PL)

Urbanized Planning

Support (PL)

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

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

StatewideStatewideUrbanized Areas (>50,000)

Urbanized Areas (>50,000)

Urban High GrowthAdjustment

>15% Population Increase

Urban High GrowthAdjustment

15 Urban Areas(Pop. >5,000)

Urban Highway Preservation

Federal Lands Highway Program (FLHP)

•Public Lands Highways•Parkways & Park Roads

•Indian Reservation Roads (IRR)•Refuge Roads

Federal Lands Highway Program (FLHP)

•Public Lands Highways•Parkways & Park Roads

•Indian Reservation Roads (IRR)•Refuge Roads

20

Discuss Commission Funding Plan for SAFETEA-LU

21

Decision- Making Balance and Program Authority

• SAFETEA-LU requires new consultation – but did not change the balance of authority in the federal program

• New planning level consultation will now include: economic development, resource agencies, planned growth

22

MPO – State Decision Making

• Consultation – confer and consider other party’s views before taking action

• Cooperation – involved parties carry out the processes and work together jointly to achieve a common goal

• Coordination – consistency

23

Decision Making

Geo. Area

ProcessUrbanized Area >50k & <200k

Outside Urbanized Area

Plans MPO responsible in Cooperation w/MDT

MDT responsible in

Consultation with

Local officials

Programs

(Trans. Imp. Prog)

MPO responsible in Cooperation w/MDT

MDT responsible in

Consultation with

Local Officials

Proj. Selection:

IM / NH / BrMTC selects in

Cooperation w/ MPO

MTC selects in

Consultation with

Local officials

Proj. Selection:

Urban/PrimaryMTC selects in

Cooperation w/ MPO

MTC selects in

Cooperation with

Local Officials

24

SAFETEA-LU Emphasis Areas Important for Montana

• TRANSIT

• SAFETY

• Environmental changes

25

MDT Transit Programs

A NEW DAY FOR TRANSIT IN MONTANA

26

Impact on Montana

• Locally developed coordination plan

• Large increase in funding

• Match Relief

27

Major Transit Funding Programs (With Billings FY ’06 Funding)

FederalSection 5307-Urbanized transit systems (50/50 operating-80/20 capital) $1,178,567

Section 5303-Urbanized transit planning 133,988

JARC-Job Access Reverse Commute 79,756

New Freedom 91,621

Section 5310-Elderly and disabled (87/13 capital) $ 81,858

Section 5311-Rural general public (54/46 operating-87/13 capital) 0

Section 5309-Buses & bus facilities (80/20 capital) (prior year projects) 3,105,131

StateTransADE-Transportation Assistance for Disabled & Elderly $ 40,059

*New with SAFETEA-LU

28

Major SAFETEA-LU Transit Changes

New Coordination RequirementsBeginning FFY 2007 all Section 5310, JARC, & New Freedomprojects must be consistent with locally developed coordination plans.

Funding Increases for Montana (FFY ‘05-FFY ’06)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Millions

5311

JARC

New Freedom

5307

5310

FFY05FFY06

29

Non- Federal Match Ratio Changes

Capital Assistance 80% Federal & 20% Local

Capital Assistance 86% Federal & 14% Local

Operating Assistance 50% Federal & 50% Local

Operating Assistance 54% Federal & 46% Local

Administration Assistance 80% Federal & 20% Local

Maintenance Assistance 80% Federal & 20% Local

Note: Federal Human Service and Indian Reservation Road Funds can be used to Match FTA Funds.

Pre-SAFETEA-LU SAFETEA-LU

30

Factors that Combine to Form a New Vision

• Local coordination plans required– This means one provider for public and human service

transportation

• Human Service Transport Costs can match FTA money (Medicaid, DD services, job training, etc.)

• Significant Increase in most flexible category

31

Example Scenario:

OLD WORLD OPERATING

Anytown, Montana

Transportation Providers

Senior Citizens Center

Develop-mentally Disabled Center

Nursing Home

Public Transit System

Other Human Service Agencies

$$$$ $$$$ $$$$ $$$$ $$$$

32

Example Scenario:

Senior Citizen Center Developmentally Disabled Center

Consolidated Provider

Other Human Service Agencies

Nursing Home

$$$$

$$$$ $$$$

$$$$

NEW WORLD OPERATING

Anytown, Montana

Transportation Providers

33

With the increase in FTA funding, MDT will implement the following changes:

• Application process simplified

• One application for Capital

• One application for Operating

• Locally Developed Coordination Plan

• Deadlines Eliminated

Transit Application Process Changes

34

SAFETY Provisions

• Safety program– Program growth about 40%– No longer a set-aside – program will ramp up

• Requirement to do a Strategic Highway Safety Plan– Eligibilities expand based on plan– Possible transfer to behavioral programs (Sec. 402)

• New Data reporting including top safety locations

35

MDT’s Approach –Statewide Comprehensive Safety Plan

• Began in Aug. 2004 in anticipation of Act

• MDT offices: Director’s Office, MCS, Engineering, SHTSO, Planning

• Non-MDT: OPI, Highway Patrol, DPHHS, members of the Court, FHWA, Motor Carriers, Safe Kids/Safe Communities, Emergency Responders, Tribal Governments, MPOs, local law

36

Objectives of a Comprehensive Safety Plan for Montana

• Establish specific safety-related goals and objectives relevant to all modes of transportation

• Address issues at all levels of jurisdiction

• Identify candidate safety strategies and evaluate

• Establish a process for prioritizing strategies

• Establish a mechanism for interagency coordination and partnerships

• Carry out a program of public outreach and education

• Develop a strategic implementation plan with specific action items

37

To Date

• Identified a long-term goal• Identified and set up work teams for 13 safety

objectives• Have performed 3 corridor safety audits• Have hosted a Tribal Safety Forum• Have Completed a Strategic Traffic Records

Assessment

38

262 Fatalities

4446 Injuries

$780 Million Cost to the State

Why all this is needed- Montana Statistics for 2003

39

Fatality Rate (per 100M VMT)

U.S.: 1.5 MT: 2.6 Best: .81

Alcohol Related

U.S.: 41% MT: 47% Best: 22%

Safety Belts

U.S.: 41.3% MT: 28% Best: 59.3%

Comparison Statistics

40

Impaired DrivingAlcohol Related Fatalities per 100 Million

VMT, Montana, 1982-2002

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

‘82 ‘83 ‘84 ‘85 ‘86 ‘87 ‘88 ‘89 ‘90 ‘91 ‘92 ‘93 ‘94 ‘95 ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02

MT Alcohol Related U.S. Alcohol Related

MT Total U.S. Total

Rate

Year

41

Alcohol by County

42

Perspective on Fatal Crash Characteristics

• Distracted driving (25%)

• Impaired driving (41%)

• Roadway departures (38%)

• Speeding (31%)

• Failure to wear safety belts (59% unrestrained)

• Intersections (21%)

• Pedestrians (11%)

• Pedalcyclists (2%)

• Trucks (11%)

• Motorcycles (8%)

Total = 247%

Total = 247%

43

Comp Safety Plan Goals

• Reduce the statewide fatality rate from 2.05 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled in 2004 to 1.79 by 2008

• Further reduce the statewide fatality rate to 1.0 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled by 2015

• By reducing the fatality rate, Montana's incapacitating injuries will also fall from 1,700 in 2005 to 950 in 2015.

 

44

Plan Status

• Working Groups set up for Each of the 13 Objective areas

• Commitments have been identified and new countermeasures defined

• Plan will go back before multi-agency group in April

• Gov. will meet again with Tribes in April

45

Safe Routes To School

New SAFETEA-LU Program!

46

SAFE Routes To School

Montana will receive $1 million annually to support Safe walking and biking to elementary and middle schools

A full time Coordinator required

There are 816 school buildings in Montana and 405 School Districts

70% for infrastructure

30% for Behavioral

47

Montana Approach – estimated launch July, 2006 • Infrastructure managed through CTEP program

• SR2S will be used as an incentive for local governments to select bike/ped CTEPprojects close to school

• Example: 100% federal funds can expand a local government’s CTEP allocation and encourage bike/ped close to schools versus another project

Montana’s Annual Allocation will not increase during SAFETEA-LU -- MT is a minimum apportionment state - $1 million per year.

SAFE Routes To School

48

Montana Approach (con’t)

• Behavioral programs will coordinate with State Highway Traffic Safety Office

• SR2S Coordinator is being solicited through an RFP -- selection criteria focused experience with communities and schools

SAFE Routes To School

49

Environment – Relative to Planning

• New requirements for visualization• Mitigation: long-range transportation plans must include potential environmental mitigation activities and potential locations to carry them out

– Developed in consultation with Fed/State/Tribal wildlife, land management, and regulatory agencies

50

Corridor Studies – Planning Products for Future NEPA

• Able to graduate an alternative set and purpose and need statement into NEPA from Planning….if

• Thorough record of public involvement and sound technical analysis

51

Corridor Studies Underway

• US 93 – Florence to Missoula

• MT 78 – North of Red Lodge

• TRED – US 2 TRE in MT

• I 94 Rest Area• S 567 – North of

Libby

52

Environmental – relative toProject Development

• New mandatory environmental review process for EIS– New category of participating agencies

– Public and agency involvement in purpose & need

– Requires coordination plans with deadlines

– Process for resolving differences

• Intent: make process more predictable –

but the jury will be out for a while

53

Some New Protections Flexibilities

• 180 day statute of limitations for lawsuits challenging federal agency approvals

• 4(f) and de minimis impact– If a de minimis impact to a 4(f) property then

alternative analysis not required

– All possible planning to minimize harm is required

– Local officials with jurisdiction concur

54

Implementation Teams

• Environmental……...............Jean Riley• Financial Issues…….............Monte Brown• Stewardship……...................Jim Walther• Planning…….........................Sandy Straehl• Safety…….............................Duane Williams

FHWA co-chair on all teams

55

Questions?