**FHWA Reauthorization Support**

**Scan of External Communications -- Week 9**

This week's scan of 27 stakeholder websites focused on associations of
governments. Listed below are the organizations that have posted recent
content related to SAFETEA-LU and its environmental and planning
provisions.

Following the list are five articles or opinion pieces located through
our database searches covering the month of October. The articles
discuss various aspects of SAFETEA-LU including HOT Lanes, environmental
streamlining, and changes to the NEPA process.

Following these articles is an article, an opinion piece, and several
letters to the editor concerning a proposed settlement to environmental
litigation associated with the Legacy Highway project in Utah.

-   "TEA-21 Reauthorization Supports Planning Efforts," Planning
    Magazine, October 2005

-   "We have a Bill- The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
    Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users," Institute of
    Transportation Engineers Journal, October 1, 2005

-   "The Freeways aren\'t Free," Seattle Times, October 10, 2005

-   "Md. and Va. to Study Beltway Toll Lanes," Washington Post, October
    27, 2005

-   "Highway Robbery: Transportation, Racism and New Routes to Equity;
    Running on Empty: Transport, Social Exclusion and Environmental
    Justice" (book review), Journal of the American Planning
    Association, Autumn 2005

-   News pieces regarding the Legacy Highway project in Utah.

**U.S. Congressional Research Service**

<http://trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=5531>

> This CRS report provides an overview of selected major provisions of
> SAFETEA-LU, including the Transportation, Community, and System
> Preservation Program on page 15, Intelligent Transportation Systems on
> page 23, Recreational Trails Program on page 26, and Environmental
> Streamlining on page 27.

**Transportation Research Board**

<http://trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=5539>

> A special feature article in the soon-to-be-released September-October
> 2005 issue of the TR News compares the funding of research and
> technology programs under the newly authorized SAFETEA-LU with funding
> provided under the preceding TEA-21. The article also outlines the new
> and expanded programs and the challenges and constraints that face the
> research community as a result of SAFETEA-LU. 

**National Association of Towns and Townships**

[http://www.natat.org/natat/WASH_REPORT_ISSUES/2005%20Wash%20Reports/washrep.October.2005.htm#Story16](http://www.natat.org/)

> NATAT's October 'Washington Report' summarizes the provisions of
> SAFETEA-LU that are of most interest to rural areas, including the
> National Scenic Byways Program.

**TEA-21 Reauthorization Supports Planning Efforts**

Jason Jordan, APA\'s assistant policy director for government affairs.

Planning Magazine, October 2005

On July 29, after 12 extensions and more than three years of debate,
Congress approved a five year, \$286.5 billion reauthorization of the
nation\'s surface transportation law. The measure, known as SAFETEA-LU
(Safe, Accountable, Fair, Efficient Transportation Equity Act-Legacy for
Users), provides a 92 percent minimum guarantee-up from 90.5 percent-for
so-called donor states that contribute more in federal gas taxes than
they receive in aid. The legislation essentially preserves the existing
program structure of TEA-21, passed in 1998, including the Enhancements
and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality programs.

Of the total funding approved, \$52.6 billion will support transit, a 46
percent increase over TEA-21. As before, approximately 18 percent of
total funding will go toward transit programs. SAFETEA-LU includes a new
\"Small Starts\" program aimed at streetcar, trolley, and bus rapid
transit projects totaling less than \$250 million. A key priority of
planners in the reauthorization was to increase the funding for
metropolitan planning organizations. The bill calls for a 1.25 percent
set-aside, a significant increase over current levels. The increase is
considered an important victory, and should improve planning practice
and programs in the nation\'s MPOs.

The legislation also establishes a federal Safe Routes to School
program. (Several state and local programs already exist.) It will
receive \$612 million in transportation funds over five years to help
make walking and bicycling to school safer for children. Funding will be
distributed according to the number of primary and secondary school
students in each state, with a \$1 million minimum.

Among the initiatives that did not make it into the final compromise
package are the Senate-approved, two percent set-aside for storm water
mitigation and a provision to ensure that a fair proportion of new
safety funds be spent on pedestrians and bicyclists.

**New rules**

As expected, there are changes to the planning process. Transportation
Improvement Programs must be updated at least every four years, rather
than three, and Long Range Transportation Plans must be updated at least
every four years in non-attainment areas. Another change allows the
horizon for conformity determinations to be shortened from 20 years to
10, as long as both the MPO and air quality agency involved agree. There
is also new language requiring consideration of natural resource and
habitat plans in the transportation planning process. In addition,
safety and security are new, separate planning factors.

With reauthorization finally enacted, attention now turns to both the
rule-making process and implementation at the state and local levels.
New rules will be forthcoming from U.S. DOT regarding the revised
planning process.

**We have a Bill- The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users**

Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal (ITE), v75, n10, p37

Saturday, October 1, 2005

On August 10, 2005, U.S. President George W. Bush signed the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users (SAFETEA-LU), a massive five-year surface transportation
authorization bill.

**Funding**

SAFETEA-LU provides an overall funding level of \$286.5 billion-\$228
billion for highway programs, \$52 billion for transit programs and \$6
billion for highway safety programs over five years. The guaranteed
funding in the overall bill represents an approximate 38-percent
increase over the

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). Of the overall
funding level, \$22 billion is provided for congressional earmarks.

The bill replaces the Minimum Guarantee Program with a new Equity Bonus
Program. Under the new program, states will receive a minimum rate of
return on their Highway Trust Fund contributions, from 90.5 percent to
92 percent by fiscal year 2008 (FY08), and a minimum percentage of
funding over the levels they received under TEA-21, regardless of
contributions to the Highway Trust Fund. States are expected to receive
approximately 19 percent more than was received under TEA-21.

**Financing**

To maintain funding stability, SAFETEA-LU tweaks the Revenue Aligned
Budget Authority (RABA). It retains the \"look ahead\" and \"look-back\"
provisions. However, if a negative swing occurs, it would not kick in
unless the Highway Trust Fund balance falls below \$6 billion. The RABA
calculation would not start until FY07 and, if there is a positive RABA
in FY07, the

additional revenue would be applied to donor states to bring them up to
a 92-percent rate of return earlier than FY08. The bill establishes a
National Surface Transportation Infrastructure

Financing Commission to report on the state of the Highway Trust Fund
and alternative approaches for generating trust fund revenues. A Road
User Fees Study also is authorized to study a specific approach to
assessing highway-use fees. In addition, the bill authorizes a National
Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission.

**Highways**

The bill maintains TEA-21 s core highway programs and creates one new
core safety program.

\* Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program-\$8.7
billion:

Allows for the provision of funds for four years.

\* Highway Bridge Program-\$21.6 billion: Agreement requires that \$100
million be set aside annually from FY06 to FY09 for designated projects.
The measure allows federal share for bridge projects up to 90 percent.

\* Highway Safety Improvement Program-\$5.1 billion: New program
authorized from FY06 to FY09. Funding is distributed by
formula-one-third based on each state\'s percentage of federal-aid
highway miles; one-third based on each state\'s percentage of miles
traveled on the federal aid system; and one-third based on each state\'s
percentage of fatalities on the federal-aid system.

\* National Highway System Program-\$30.5 billion

\* Surface Transportation Program (STP)-\$32.5 billion: The bill
maintains the mandate that states allocate a portion of their funds to
urban areas with populations greater than 200,000. The creation of the
new Highway Safety Improvement Program eliminates die need for the STP
set-aside for safety programs. The bill also allows STP funds to be used
for projects associated with intersections with high levels of
congestion or accidents.

**Transit**

The bill provides \$52 billion for overall transit programs. This
includes \$19.1 billion for urbanized formula grants and \$1.9 billion
for non-urban areas (under 50,000 people). A total of \$1.7 billion in
formula funding is provided over four years for growing and high-density
states. Starting in FY06, the bill creates a \$339-billion competitive
\"New Freedom\" program to fund projects for disabled accessibility. The
bill provides \$8 billion for Major Capital Investment Grants-\"new
starts.\" Of those funds, \$200 million is set aside annually for new
\"small starts\" grants-it may provide up to \$75 million for projects
costing less than \$250 million.

**Safety**

SAFETEA-LU establishes a \$5.1-billion Highway Safely Improvement
Program (HSIP) for FY06 to FY09. Of those funds, \$880 million is set
aside for the railway-highway grade crossing program and \$90 million is
set aside for construction and operational improvements on high-risk
rural roads. The remainder of the program funds is distributed by
formula.

The program requires states to develop and implement individual
strategic highway safety plans and submit annual progress reports to the
secretary of transportation. States that do not develop a strategic plan
by October 2007 will have their HSIP apportionment frozen at the FY07
funding level. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) is required to review each state\'s highway safety program on a
triennial basis.

Other safety-focused programs include a new Safe Routes to School
Program, work zone safety programs and other provisions to address
pedestrian and bicycle safety, older drivers and pedestrians and
increased seatbelt use. The bill financially penalizes states that do
not adopt a .08 blood alcohol content as the legal standard for
drunkenness.

**NHTS**

A safety programs includes \$502 million over five years for the Highway
Safety Research and Outreach Program. Required studies from this program
will focus on crash data, distracted drivers, pedestrian safety and
alcohol-impaired driving. The bill creates a new five-year,
\$34.5-billion State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements
Incentives Grant program to provide additional funding to states that
initiate programs that improve safety data collection and sharing. It
also authorizes a joint NHTSA-Federal Motor Safety Act outreach and
education program to promote highway safety.

SAFETEA-LU also prohibits the sale or use of traffic signal preemption
transmitters to unauthorized users.

**Project Streamlining**

SAFETEA-LU provides changes to streamline the environmental review
process. Some of those changes include the U.S. Department of
Transportation\'s (U.S. DOT) designation as the lead agency for
environmental reviews; adding a new category of \"participating
agencies\" to allow more state, local and tribal input in the process;
and requiring resolution of any issues that could potentially delay the
process within 30 days, or U.S. DOT must notify Congress and publish the
action in the Federal Register. The streamlining provisions include a
180-day statute of limitations for judicial review of a federal agency
challenge. A project delivery pilot program is established that would
allow, under certain guidelines, specific states to assume U.S. DOT
environmental review responsibilities.

**Planning**

The set-aside for metropolitan planning is increased to 1.25 percent. In
an effort to provide consistency, SAFETEA-LU creates the same planning
procedures for metropolitan and statewide planning. The bill requires a
greater amount of consultation and coordination from other
entities/interests affected by transportation, including federal, state,
local and tribal agencies as well as representatives of the pedestrian,
bicycle and disabled communities. It also includes four-year update
cycles for long-range transportation plans in non-attainment and
maintenance areas and state and metropolitan transportation improvement
programs. Transportation management areas are required to be certified
no less than every four years.

**Congestion Mitigation and Mobility**

Congestion mitigation and air quality (CMAQ) eligibility is expanded to
include projects or programs that improve transportation systems
management and operations that mitigate congestion and improve air
quality. The bill authorizes but does not fund a new Real-Time System
Management Information Program. The program is designed to allow states
to monitor and share traffic, weather and accident information in
real-time to improve security, mitigate congestion and improve emergency
response.

National Highway System (NHS), STP and CMAQ funds are available for
planning and deployment of the program. The bill requires the secretary
of transportation to establish data exchange formats within two years of
the bill\'s enactment to facilitate data exchange between state and
local governments and the traveling public.

The bill also authorizes a \$1.8-billion new program for infrastructure
projects of national and regional significance. This program will
provide funding for projects that will have an economic benefit, improve
safety, reduce congestion and facilitate international trade on a
regional or national scale.

**Research**

SAFETEA-LU provides a 36-percent increase in overall research funding
over TEA-21. The bill authorizes the Future Strategic Highway Research
Program (FSHRP) at \$51.3 million per year for FY06 to FY09. FSHRP
program priority areas are highway renewal, safety, reliability and
capacity. The Transit Cooperative Research Program is authorized at \$9
million per year, a slight increase over TEA-21. The bill establishes
the Surface Transportation Environment and Planning Cooperative Research
Program to study relationships between transportation and the
environment and is funded at \$16.9 million per year. A new Safety
Innovation Deployment Program is funded at \$12.8 million per year.

**Training and Education**

SAFETEA-LU authorizes funding for continued, revamped and new training
and education programs. Dwight D. Eisenhower Transportation Fellowships
are funded at \$2.2 million per year for FY05 to FY09. The revamped
Garrett A. Morgan Technology and Transportation Education program is
funded at \$1.25 million for FY06 to FY09. The new Transportation
Education Development Pilot program is authorized at \$1.875 million per
year (FY06 to FY09) to support public-private partnerships in the
development and testing of new transportation training and education
programs. A new Transportation Scholarship Opportunities Program is
authorized for the establishment of scholarship and mentoring programs.
Another provision allows states to use funds from NHS, STP, CMAQ,
Interstate Maintenance and bridge funds for training and education
activities at a 100-percent federal share.

**Other**

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS): SAFETEA-LU authorizes \$110
million annually for ITS research and development and \$122 million in
FY05 only for ITS deployment. The bill directs the secretary of
transportation to develop a five-year National Intelligent
Transportation System program plan. Future of Surface Transportation
System Study: The bill directs the secretary of transportation to
conduct a study of current conditions and future needs of the surface
transportation system and develop a plan to ensure that the system meets
those needs.

**SAFETEA-LU AND ITE**

In 2002, ITE published a policy paper entitled \"Providing a Safe,
Reliable and secure Transportation System: 2004 and Beyond-ITEs Policy
Recommendations for the Reauthorization of the Federal Surface
Transportation Program." The document was developed out of nearly two
years of effort, with critical input and guidance from ITE technical
councils, die Policy and Legislative Committee, the International Board
of Direction and the general membership. It was our platform for sharing
die ITE perspective with the administration, Congress and sister
associations. The chart on the next page illustrates ITEs
recommendations and how we fared in

our efforts. More information on SAFETEA-LU can be found on the ITE
Government Afiws Web page at www.ite.org.

\* Note: Information was gleaned from HR 3-House Action Report and the

Federal Highway Administrations SAFETEA-LU fact sheets.

**The Freeways aren\'t Free**

By: Neal Peirce

October 10, 2005

Syndicated Columnist, The Seattle Times

We might have expected it. The energy price spikes triggered by
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita prompted state legislators in a dozen or
more states to propose drastic (albeit temporary) gasoline-tax
suspensions.

Heaven forbid, it would seem, that the legislators\' constituents should
have to face the consequences of buying SUVs and other gas-guzzling
heavy vehicles. Or the perils of choosing homes in distant suburbs with
long, long commutes. Or the consequences of ignoring years of warnings
about the nation\'s vulnerability to global energy cutoffs.

No, it seems our politicos believe we need price coddling. For years
they\'ve refused to raise gas taxes nearly fast enough to maintain
reasonable spending power to keep road systems in shape. Somehow we
still believe \"freeways\" are truly \"free.\"

Fortuitously, most state legislatures weren\'t in session the past month
or two, so the tax holidays were generally just talk. But not in
Georgia, where a special session was called, and the House rushed 164-6,
the Senate 49-2, to ratify Gov. Sonny Perdue\'s moratorium on the state
gasoline tax.

Were the legislators considerate, spendthrift or spineless? Take your
choice. The fact is, gas taxes exist for a reason: to pay for roads the
public wants and expects. When gas taxes are cut, or lag in the face of
inflation, it\'s not just roads that may suffer --- schools,
universities, medical programs and many more programs are potential
losers. Already, by one analysis, roadway demands are gobbling up so
much of our public revenue stream that gas taxes only cover 35 percent
of the burden.

State Rep. Nan Grogan Orrock of Atlanta, one of the few Georgia
dissenters, appropriately questioned a gas-tax moratorium at the precise
point of added state outlays to assist Katrina refugees. \"Bogus tax
cuts,\" she said, simply \"further weaken government\'s ability to do
its job.\"

Plus, there\'s a deepening long-term dilemma. Even before Katrina and
Rita, gasoline prices had risen about 20 percent in a year. Result: Some
Americans began to drive less, sensibly cutting back on errands,
starting to use transit or telecommute more often, buying hybrid cars,
or making a *really* radical change --- walking or bicycling to work.

But less driving does mean lower gas-tax yields, and therefore fewer
dollars to maintain or build roads.

So, inevitably, more attention is turning to HOT (high-occupancy/toll)
lanes, especially around the nation\'s heavily congested major metro
areas. Generally cost-free to car-poolers, HOT lanes are accessible to
any driver who opts to pay the extra cost for avoiding traffic hold-ups.

Two HOT systems have worked well in California\'s Orange and San Diego
counties since the 1990s; now they\'re coming on rapidly with systems up
in Houston and Minneapolis and in review or construction in Colorado,
Washington state, Georgia and Northern Virginia.

Promoted intensely to policymakers by national transportation experts
Robert Poole and Kenneth Orski, HOT systems do create a fresh revenue
stream for hard-pressed governments. Plus, with newly developed
\"smart\" tolling technologies, drivers with responders in their
vehicles are charged precisely where and at what hours they use a toll
road.

Poole recommends reserving a part of a HOT lane\'s capacity for public
buses, controlling for fast flow by variable pricing of rides for
private cars and trucks. That way, he says, the new roadway serves many
more people than a conventional bus way. He and Orski favor banishing
carpools (i.e., any non-paying private cars) from HOT lanes --- a way,
it\'s claimed, to crack down on sometimes staggering numbers of solo
drivers who cheat by using high-occupancy lanes.

Indeed, unless carpools pay, the fiscal viability of new HOT lanes may
come into question. The proposed HOT lanes on Northern Virginia\'s
crowded Interstates 95 and 395 are a case in point. Ronald Kirby, the
respected transportation director for the Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments, estimates tolls at some rush-hour choke points
would have to be as much as \$1.60 a mile. A round-trip rush-hour
commute into Washington from outlying Prince William County could cost
an attention-getting \$40.

But is a \"tolled\" highway system truly *the* answer for our future?
Can it pass the political hurdles? Even if it does, is our present
degree of dependency on the automobile sustainable? Those are the
questions very few of us --- politico or plain citizen --- seem ready to
answer.

**Md. and Va. to Study Beltway Toll Lanes**\
Pay-to-Drive Option Would Cover Half of Highway if Proposals Are
Approved

By Steven Ginsberg\
Washington Post Staff Writer\
Thursday, October 27, 2005

The governors of Virginia and Maryland announced plans yesterday to
study adding express toll lanes to 28 miles of the region\'s major
commuter routes, including large portions of the Capital Beltway, as
both states push to build the new-style highways.

Maryland will lead a study on adding toll lanes to 14 miles of the
Beltway from Georgetown Pike across the American Legion Bridge and onto
Interstate 270 to its juncture with Interstate 370.

Virginia transportation officials will lead a study on adding the lanes
to 14 miles of the Beltway from Springfield across the Woodrow Wilson
Bridge to Route 5 in Maryland. Officials said that study would consider
transit options, because the replacement bridge now under construction
is designed to carry Metrorail.

Combined with a plan already underway in Virginia to add toll lanes
between Springfield and Georgetown Pike, the three stretches would bring
express lanes to about half the 64-mile Beltway, including the entire
22-mile Virginia portion. If a map of the Beltway were a clock face, the
lanes would stretch from about 4 to 10.

The studies will cost \$1 million each and take about 18 months. It is
difficult to say when the lanes would be built, but the minimum time is
about five years after completion of the studies. The states could
decide to turn the projects over to private companies to speed
construction. The lanes already planned in Virginia, to be built and
operated by two private firms, are scheduled to open in 2010.

Officials from both states said the lanes would virtually guarantee
drivers a congestion-free ride, because tolls would vary with traffic,
rising during peak times to control demand.

Drivers would need electronic transponders, such as those used by
E-ZPass customers, to enter the new lanes. Gated tollbooths would be
unnecessary. Electronic devices would read the transponders and charge
motorists\' accounts. Signs would tell them how much they were paying.

Whether carpoolers would be allowed to ride free must be decided,
officials said.

Virginia favors the high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane system. Carpoolers
would travel for free, while solo drivers could choose to pay. Maryland
transportation officials favor charging all drivers.

HOT lanes were first pioneered in California a decade ago but have only
recently become a popular trend in transportation planning as states
look for solutions to traffic congestion. HOT lanes opened this summer
in Minneapolis and are under construction in Denver and Houston.

Politicians and planners laud the express toll lanes as a way to give
people a traffic-free option, albeit at considerable cost. They also say
the concept allows for bus service on highways like the Beltway, because
a congestion-free ride permits buses to maintain schedules. They are
also attractive because toll revenue can be used to pay for them or to
attract private firms to invest in them.

State officials in Virginia have pursued them as aggressively as anyone.
Within the last 17 months, the state has announced plans to pursue HOT
lanes on its portion of the Beltway and on a 56-mile stretch of
Interstate 95 and Interstate 395 between Spotsylvania County and the
14th Street bridge. On Tuesday, a panel of transportation experts plans
to recommend to the Virginia Department of Transportation one of two
proposals for that project.

\"We\'ve tried looking at a referendum approach, we\'ve tried tax reform
and we had a transportation component that didn\'t get included,\" said
Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner (D). \"Folks in the national capital area
want action, and HOT lanes are a way to add capacity.\"

Warner said the close coordination with Maryland was designed in part to
ensure that the idea does not fade when he leaves office in January or
whenever a new administration takes over in Annapolis.

\"I want to make sure this is far enough down the pike that nobody can
unwind this,\" he said after a regional summit in Annapolis with
Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) and D.C. Mayor Anthony A.
Williams (D).

Maryland transportation officials are studying express toll lanes on the
rest of the Beltway.

Detractors worry that the lanes are too expensive for low-income drivers
\-- the estimated cost of a ride in the I-95/395 corridor, for example,
is about \$13 \-- and some say toll lanes amount to double taxation.
Carpoolers have come out against the I-95 plan over fears that it will
ruin the popular practice of \"slugging,\" in which drivers and riders
form spontaneous carpools.

Despite the coordination between Maryland and Virginia, several
significant issues remain. Virginia has joined with private firms to
finance its HOT lanes, and Maryland officials have not decided how to
proceed.

Disagreement over financing methods could make it difficult to build
lanes that would run across state lines, because splitting the projects
at the border could make them less enticing for investors.

Also, the two states must agree on whether Metrorail or highway lanes
make more sense on the Wilson Bridge. Adding rail would leave no space
for toll lanes. Rail supporters said they were pleased that the states
would study building Metro over the bridge, but said they were concerned
that the rush to build express toll lanes elsewhere would lead officials
in the region to follow suit.

\"HOT lanes themselves are not going to solve everything,\" said Laura
Olsen of the Coalition for Smarter Growth.

Officials said that, even though the studies are coordinated, each state
could adopt its own format without slowing drivers. For instance, if
carpoolers rode free in Virginia, they would simply be charged a toll
like everyone else once they crossed into Maryland.

\"Technology used on one side of the bridge will go for naught unless
the appropriate technology is on the other side of the bridge,\" Ehrlich
said.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

**Highway Robbery: Transportation, Racism and New Routes to
Equity/Running on**

**Empty: Transport, Social Exclusion and Environmental Justice**

By Nicholas Targ

Journal of the American Planning Association, v71 n4, p456-457, p.2
Autumn 2005

Highway Robbery: Transportation, Racism and New Routes to Equity

Robert D. Bullard, Glenn Johnson, and Angel O. Torres, editors. South
End

Press, Cambridge, MA, 2004. 300 pages. \$20 (paperback).

Running on Empty: Transport, Social Exclusion and Environmental

Justice Karen Lucas, editor. Policy Press, Bristol, United Kingdom,
2004.

306 pages. \$43.82 (paperback).

BOOK REVIEW

Highway Robbery and Running on Empty are each timely and useful
collections of essays. In very different ways, the texts add to the
literature by broadening and deepening the dialogue around
transportation equity-the inequitable distribution of both the benefits
and burdens associated with transportation systems. Coming on the 5Oth
anniversary of Rosa Park\'s heroic actions on a bus in Montgomery,
Alabama, and the 4Oth anniversary of the enactment of this nation\'s
major civil rights laws, attention to the transportation needs of the
dispossessed is both a timely and poignant reminder of where we have
been and where we need to go.

The books agree on most points. For both sets of editors and chapter
authors, transportation is fundamentally not about the movement of
people from point A to point B. Rather, they view mobility as the ticket
to social, economic, and civic life. As Highway Robbery chapter
contributor Eric Mann writes, \"When low-income people have completely
run out of money they just do not go places. . . . (T) hey are denied
the right to go to church, visit family and friends, to attend cultural
and educational programs, or even to look for better paying jobs\" (p.
41).

To address transportation equity issues, therefore, both books
forcefully argue that transportation accessibility must be considered in
a proactive and integrated way throughout all aspects of planning, from
land use and education to poverty alleviation and economic development.
This argument is both theoretical and pragmatic. Both books argue that
successful transport enables other activities. This is essentially the
position advanced in the recent U.S. Executive Order 13300, which
established the Federal Interagency Transportation Coordination Council,
to improve mobility for transportation disadvantaged individuals.
Running on Empty also observes that if additional funds are not
available from existing government sources, they are unlikely to be
found elsewhere either.

Although the books agree in many respects, and are both inspired by the
environmental justice movement\'s community-centered and holistic
approach to equity issues, they come at transportation equity out of
strikingly different planning traditions. Highway Robbery\'s perspective
on transportation equity and racism fits squarely within the social
justice movement and advocacy planning. Running on Empty is much more in
the reformist-technocratic tradition. Both perspectives are valid, and
compliment one another. Indeed, the two texts make a fine pair,
addressing the same issue without duplication.

The introductory and first chapters of Highway Robbery provide the
theoretical, legal, and planning background for the balance of the text.
This material makes the text highly appropriate for classroom purposes
and as a primer for planning advocates or community members addressing
transportation equity issues. The final chapter, \"Building
Transportation Equity into Smart Growth,\" shows the nexus between smart
growth and transportation equity, creating the basis for the
transportation plan of the \"beloved community,\" to borrow a phrase
from the civil rights champion and member of Congress, John Lewis, who
wrote the book\'s preface.

The seven essays that comprise the majority of Highway Robbery provide
compelling case studies of transportation equity victories achieved by
community-based organizations. Written by the advocates themselves,
though the studies may lack academic grounding, they are rich, textured
accounts of coalition building, legal actions, and establishment of
novel and perhaps unique community-centered planning institutions. At
their best, the case studies offer a glimpse of what the realization of
transportation equality might look like.

Omar Freillas\' chapter, \"Burying Robert Moses\" Legacy,\" is a superb
example of community-based advocacy. Describing a community\'s battle to
win a seat at the planning table, to \"underground\" the Gowanus
Expressway, and to stabilize the neighborhood, the essay makes the point
that legal action should be used to change power relationships and to
educate, in addition to achieving specific remedies. Transportation
decisions must belong to those who will be affected. A few chapters are
not as successful, lacking distance or sufficient analytic detail.
However, even these contain vivid accounts, and in a very real way their
lack of distance becomes their virtue.

Running on Empty, by contrast, is a more technically oriented text,
consisting of case studies from the United Kingdom and the United
States. Unlike the U.S., which has a fairly well established legal
framework for considering and addressing disproportionate impacts (e.g.,
the National Environmental Policy Act, Title VI, Community Impact
Assessments), the U.K. is apparently only now beginning to address
transportation equity as a policy issue. The text, therefore, is written
with the express purpose of bridging the fields of transportation
planning and social policy to facilitate a. \"transfer of lessons\"
across the Atlantic. Running on Empty succeeds in its aims, though this
requires some effort on the part of the reader in places.

The book is in four parts: an introductory, contextual chapter; two
lengthy sections comprised of case studies from the U.S. and U.K.; and a
concluding chapter summarizing lessons learned. The framework analysis,
combined with the case studies, elucidates conceptual differences
between the approaches in the U.S. and U.K. that limit how transferable
activities or programs may be. While historically the U.S. approach has
been to focus on racial equality, because of our civil rights movement
and Title Vl of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the U.K. had no comparable
social movement and has no similar statute. Consequently, many of the
transportation planning approaches to these issues in the U.S. may not
make sense in the U.K.

Running on Empty explains that the U.K. relates transportation equity to
\"social exclusion,\" described as the \"linked economic, social, and
environmental problems experienced by people living on low incomes\" (p.
i), and approaches the issue in a practical, moral, and forward-looking
way, but one very different from ours, which focuses on preventing
discrimination. While anti-discrimination statutes may not fit under the
U.K. model, stop-and-think statutes like NEPA are clearly applicable,
especially when linked with environmental justice and community impact
assessment planning.

In many ways Running on Empty and Highway Robbery are very different
because of the distinct traditions from which they are written. It is
interesting to note that these differences may be part of the legacy of
the civil rights events whose anniversaries we observe this year.

Nicholas Targ is the associate director for environmental justice
integration, Office of Environmental Justice, at the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and co-chair of the American Bar Association\'s
Environmental Justice Committee, section of Environment, Energy and
Resources. Mr. Targ also teaches environmental law at the Howard
University School of Law. The views expressed are those of Mr. Targ and
do not necessarily represent those of the EPA or any other agency.

Deseret Morning News, Friday, October 21, 2005

**Chamber pushes Legacy talks: Resolution favors negotiations to end
litigation against parkway**

By Nicole Warburton

<http://deseretnews.com/dn/print/1,1442,635155072,00.html>

The Salt Lake Chamber on Monday released a resolution in support of
negotiations to end litigation against the Legacy Parkway. But the
resolution, approved last week, includes several strongly worded
statements. Notable are two paragraphs that say a proposed ban on
commercial truck traffic on the highway is detrimental to economic
development.

The resolution states: \"The agreement-in-principle includes some
restrictions and provisions that the Chamber deems detrimental to
economic development, growth and commerce, including a prohibition of
trucks using the Legacy Parkway. . ." Chamber president Lane Beattie
emphasized, however, that despite the truck ban included in a draft
settlement, the Chamber still supports negotiations that will lead to
construction of the Legacy Parkway.

\"We strongly encourage the Legislature to adopt the final agreement,\"
he said. \"That is being said even in light of the fact that we know the
ban on trucks is an issue. Trucks are a very important part of this
entire negotiated agreement, but it is from a business standpoint that
we encourage them to get under construction and under way as soon as
possible.\"

The Chamber has released previous statements in support of Legacy. The
road, along with other state transportation systems, is critical to
economic development, according to Beattie. Scott Hymas, CEO of RC
Willey and a Chamber member, said: \"I agree with supporting a
negotiated agreement. The litigation has gone on long enough. We don\'t
have a final agreement or actual definition of \'truck traffic,\' but I
think for all parties involved, we believe in a negotiated settlement.\"

On Sept. 21, the governor\'s office signed what is known as an
agreement-in-principle with plaintiffs in the 2001 suit against Legacy.
Key aspects of the draft agreement include the following: a prohibition
on truck traffic; a speed limit set at 55 mph; no billboards;
noise-reducing pavement; and a pledge of \$2.5 million for an
environmental study of mass transit.

In early November, lawmakers plan to meet in a special session to vote
for or against a formal settlement agreement. Whether they have enough
votes to pass the agreement is still up for debate; several groups have
announced they do not support the agreement because it includes a ban on
trucks.

Deseret Morning News, Sunday, October 02, 2005

**Both parties must learn from Parkway legacy**

By Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb

<http://deseretnews.com/dn/print/1,1442,615154253,00.html>

 \"Legacy\" is a 15th-century European term for something given or
transmitted by an ancestor. The Legacy Parkway is more than a
much-needed transportation corridor to be used by generations of Utahns;
it also serves as an example to our descendants of how to avoid similar
pitfalls that plagued its development.

House Democrats first learned details of the litigation resolution from
UDOT officials just a few hours before the press conference announcing
the settlement of the lawsuit. No member of their caucus had been
involved in the settlement negotiations. (Democratic Senator **Ed
Mayne** was part of the negotiations team but was forbidden to share
information with House colleagues because of confidentiality
restrictions.) After their presentation, UDOT officials could not answer
important questions posed by the Democrats. As a result, Minority Leader
**Ralph Becker** stated that his caucus --- which supports a new road
for Davis County --- would withhold endorsement until more information
was forthcoming. Normally, the Democrats would be ignored, but a number
of Republicans are upset, and Democrat votes are needed to pass the
legislation in special session. By asking questions vital to taxpayers,
commuters and homeowners, the excluded Democrats serve an essential role
as the loyal opposition --- despite being demonized for their efforts.
While the Democrats\' stance is temporary --- they will not prevent
construction of the highway --- it does illustrate a recurring problem
behind Legacy Parkway.

In the late 1990s, as the **Mike Leavitt** administration and UDOT
started to formulate the specifics regarding Legacy Parkway, Democrats
were not included or consulted. In fact, a reporter --- seeking a
response subsequent to the press conference announcing construction
plans for Legacy --- asked how then-Minority Leader **Dave Jones** was
apprised of the project. If Jones, Becker and Senate Minority Leader
**Scott Howell** had been included early in the process, they would have
provided a valuable insight into anticipated responses by the
environmental community. They could have easily worked with the
well-respected Davis County Transportation Task Force Chairman **Stuart
Adams** (now a state legislator) and other officials to craft a plan
that avoided judicial concerns. Instead, sidelining the Democrats soon
resulted in surrender of the construction process to environmental
groups and the courts, which cost money and time. Also, **Rocky
Anderson** was given a soapbox to launch frequent and outrageous
condemnations of Davis County commuters (negligently forgetting their
contribution to the Salt Lake City economy).

Bipartisan participation early in legislative and administrative matters
is not some \"fuzzy\" ideal. It is how most federal programs are
created. Leavitt, during his successful first term, was a master of
inclusiveness and never worried about partisan attacks. Gov. **Jon
Huntsman Jr.** and other state leaders must remember the lesson of
Legacy in future planning: Democrat numbers may be small, but our
contributions can be huge.

**Webb:** Sorry, but Democrats really don\'t have much to complain about
here. As Frank mentioned, Democratic Sen. **Ed Mayne** was involved in
the negotiations. Aside from the negotiating team and leadership,
legislators were pretty much kept in the dark about the final provisions
of the agreement until the briefings in caucuses.

It would have been good to have a Democratic leader at the press
conference announcing the agreement-in-principle, but legislative
leaders in general were scarce at the press conference. It was handled
by the governor, UDOT, environmental leaders and members of the
negotiating team. The Democrats aren\'t going to want to go down in
history as the voting bloc that scuttled the Legacy Parkway, especially
with the concessions that make the highway more environmentally
friendly. And their votes may well be needed before this deal is done.
There\'s plenty of grumbling in conservative GOP ranks about caving in
to the environmentalists and establishing a bad precedent that
encourages obstructionism.

I am an advocate for Republican magnanimity whenever possible.
Republicans ought to go out of their way to involve Democrats. They
could co-opt a lot of them and build stronger coalitions around issues.
When I worked for Gov. Leavitt, we had what we called the 60-20-20 rule
for making big political decisions. The idea was that that only 60
percent of the success of a decision has to do with the actual quality
or rightness of the decision. Another 20 percent of the success is
determined by whom you involve in helping make the decision (getting
their buy-in) and the final 20 percent of success is determined by whom
you inform in advance about the decision and whom you invite to help you
announce it.

Following the 60-20-20 rule helps smooth even tough, controversial
decisions. Not all politicians follow this rule, but they would be wise
to do so. Back to Legacy: There is plenty to dislike in this deal. No
one got everything they wanted, but the flaws are not great enough to
reject the agreement and go back to litigation, years of delay and \$200
million more in costs. Many lawmakers dislike the notion of negotiating
with environmental groups. However, the court, in essence, gave them
standing and it was either negotiate with them or fight them in court.

UDOT leaders **John Njord** and **Carlos Braceras** deserve credit for
pro-actively starting the dialogue leading to the negotiations and
(hopefully) an end to litigation and delays.

One rumor that deserves to be put to rest: The Utah Transit Authority
did not work behind the scenes to promote mass transit in the agreement.
Because the agreement includes funding for transit studies in south
Davis County, a few people have speculated that UTA pushed that
provision. UTA leaders say that is simply untrue. They did not originate
that idea or promote it.

*Republican LaVarr Webb was policy deputy to Gov. Mike Leavitt and
Deseret News managing editor. He now is a political consultant and
lobbyist. E-mail: <lwebb@exoro.com>. Democrat Frank Pignanelli is a Salt
Lake attorney, lobbyist and political adviser. A former candidate for
Salt Lake mayor, Pignanelli served 10 years in the Utah House of
Representatives, six years as House minority leader. E-mail:
<frankp@xmission.com>.*

­

Deseret Morning News, Monday, September 26, 2005

**Legacy deal is Extortion**

<http://deseretnews.com/dn/print/1,1442,615152731,00.html>

The proposed \"agreement\" with anti-growth and environmentalist
extremists over the Legacy Parkway is pure extortion. Instead of
providing a solution, it opens the door to continuous legalized
harassment by the \"nutcakes\" for all future time. It is an outrage to
allow the congestion coalition to dictate a ridiculous 55 mph speed
limit, the exclusion of commercial trucking, the size and number of
lanes and other conditions contrary to the public good. The effects and
expenses of this calamity will haunt us well beyond the immediate needs
and costs of one crucial highway. If the Legislature gives in, others
should start suing the Sierra Club, Rocky Anderson and the \"Utahns for
No Transportation\" groups out of existence.

**Paul Sharp**, Salt Lake City

Deseret Morning News, Saturday, October 1, 2005

**Legacy settlement is Good**

<http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,615154290,00.html>

      I have read with wonder the angry letters about the Legacy Highway
settlement. I guess those angry folks would call me a blinkety-blank
environmentalist, although I think of myself as simply having common
sense. What is so bad about having a highway with no semi-trucks on it?
And why is it so wrong to protect the wetlands habitat of thousands of
God\'s creatures? Some eat mosquitoes, I might add. As for the speed
limit of 55, maybe we\'ll have one freeway where people only go 65 mph
instead of 80. I thank all the good people who came to this agreement.
It is the best of both worlds. I wish we didn\'t need another freeway
--- we\'d be better off taking the train or bus. But then I\'m not sure
some of us are thinking much about the future.

**Margaret Mayer**, Bountiful

Deseret Morning News, Wednesday, October 19, 2005

**Who\'s to blame for wasted \$\$?**

<http://deseretnews.com/dn/print/1,1442,635154378,00.html>

I can see that the environmentalists obtained several benefits from
their lawsuit against the Legacy Highway by negotiation and promising to
end litigation. The state of Utah is finally free of the entanglements
of the 10th Circuit Court in Denver, which is what it apparently wanted
more than anything else. I\'m very much in favor of the highway being
built, even in the form of the newly agreed-to design.

My question is, to whom can we, the ordinary taxpaying resident of Utah,
hold accountable for the waste of over \$230 million? The previous
governor now lives in another state, the environmental lobby is a
privately funded special interest group that does not report to anyone
but its own board of directors and the transportation conglomerate of
UTA and UDOT aren\'t aligned to work together. I\'m sure the trucking
industry wants to know, too. Do others taxpayers feel similarly
disenfranchised?

**Paul Hayward**, Farmington

Deseret Morning News, Tuesday, October 25, 2005

**Legacy backers misunderstand**

I have been very disappointed that some of the proponents of the
original Legacy Highway plan are complaining that the compromise between
the environmental community and UDOT is like negotiating with
\"terrorists.\" First, they have no concept of the meaning of the word
terrorist. This says something about their mental acuity.

Second, and far more important, they don\'t know (or don\'t want to
know) the first thing about the National Environmental Policy Act. If
they did, they would realize that what happened as a result of the
negotiations (although painful) was exactly what is supposed to happen
under NEPA. The NEPA process is all about coming up with a practical and
environmentally sound alternative. This, in my view, is what has taken
place.

**Gordon S. Lind**, Sandy