**FHWA Reauthorization Support**

**Scan of External Communications -- Week 5**

This week's scan of 24 stakeholder websites focused on associations of
governments. Listed below are the organizations that have added content
related to SAFETEA-LU and its environmental and planning provisions
since the August 2^nd^ memo.

Following the list are several articles or press releases located
through our database search:

-   Legislative Victories for NRPA: members' advocacy efforts paid off
    *(National Recreation and Park Association)*

-   HOT Lanes a Tool, Not a Panacea *(Environmental Defense Fund)*

-   Cutting Federal Highway and Transit Investment Not an Option to
    Offset Hurricane Relief Costs *(American Road & Transportation
    Builders Association)*

-   Full Speed Ahead for Transportation Funds *(American Public Works
    Association)*

**American Public Transportation Association**

<http://www.apta.com/government_affairs/safetea_lu/>

> This resource center contains links to APTA statements, legislative
> analyses, and funding breakdowns.

**Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations**

[http://www.ampo.org/mpo_issues/safety/final%20TEA-21%20vs.%20SAFETEA-LU%20matrix.doc](http://www.ampo.org/mpo_issues/safety/SAFETEA-LU.html)

> Summary document entitled 'AMPO's Guide to Deciphering SAFETEA-LU's
> Changes to TEA-21' contains a breakdown of key changes in the new law.

**Association of State Wetland Managers**

<http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2005/2005-08-01-07.asp>

> The August member update newsletter contains a link to this article by
> the Environmental News Service entitled "Environmental Red Lights,
> Green lights in New Transportation Law." The article summarizes
> SAFETEA-LU's environmental provisions and offers several quotes from
> key members of Congress.

**National Association of Counties**

<http://www.naco.org/Template.cfm?Section=Transportation&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=17312>

> The analysis by Robert J. Fogel, Senior Legislative Director, notes
> that core highway programs that fund county projects fared well and
> discusses environmental streamlining, transit funding, and the
> creation of the 'Projects of National and Regional Significance'
> program which could affect counties.

**Legislative Victories for NRPA: NRPA members\' advocacy efforts paid
off**

By Rich J. Dolesh

National Recreation and Park Association

 

Last month, NRPA members, with the support of a national coalition of
partners and other like-minded advocates, achieved two extremely
important legislative victories: the reauthorization of the
Transportation Equity Act in a new six-year bill known as SAFETEA-LU and
the passage of the 2006 Interior Appropriations bill. While the amount
of funding for these bills was paramount, there is also equal
significance attached to the strength of the national coalition that was
formed for each bill, and the national policy implications that will
affect parks and recreation in the future.\
 \
In virtually all measures, the new transportation bill stacks up as one
of NRPA's best legislative achievements of the past decade. What makes
the achievement enormous for NRPA is that virtually every one of the
goals identified in its 2005 Legislative Platform was reached.
SAFETEA-LU, properly named the "Safe, Accountable, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act-a Legacy for Users," is a six-year
reauthorization of the nation's surface transportation program.\
 \
SAFETEA-LU follows the previous authorization for the surface
transportation fund, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA21), and covers the six fiscal years FY 2005 through FY 2009. This
omnibus bill includes spending authorizations for highway construction
and mass transit, and also includes environmental policy and laws
regulating the impacts of highway construction.\
 \
In SAFETEA-LU's final version, due to an extraordinary advocacy and
education effort by NRPA members and coalition partners, park- and
recreation- related spending categories were increased by hundreds of
millions of dollars. More importantly, long-standing statutory
protections for historic sites, park and recreation areas, wildlife
refuges and waterfowl areas, known in the law as Section 4(f), were
protected from encroachments by the powerful transportation lobbyist
groups.\
 \
Section 4(f) ultimately was protected because an NRPA-led coalition of
more than 20 national organizations representing more than 10 million
people---who educated and informed legislators of its value and never
gave up.\
 \
NRPA supported reasonable compromises to Section 4(f) from the beginning
of legislative deliberations, but transportation industry groups pushed
to remove critical parts of the statute that would have resulted in
removing the most important language in the law. NRPA recognizes the
tireless, visionary leadership of Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.) who stood
firmly against efforts to seriously weaken this law. "You can be proud
that you could make your voice be heard across America," he says at the
closing session of the Rails to Trails Conservancy conference in
Minneapolis after the vote. "Don't stop; keep going."\
 \
Some highlights of authorizations for important park and recreation
program categories in SAFETEA-LU include about \$3.5 billion for
Transportation Enhancements; \$370 million for the Recreational Trails

Program (an increase of 62 percent); full funding for the Sportfishing
and Boating Safety Education Act; and increases for Scenic Byways,
Federal Lands Highways Program, the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality
Program that contain funding for bike-pedestrian transportation
corridors and other projects.\
 \
A number of exciting new programs have also been established that may
hold many opportunities for park and recreation agencies and local
communities such as the Safe Routes to School Program, which was funded
at \$612 million; a new non-motorized pilot demonstration program for
four selected cities and counties (Minneapolis; Marin County, Calif.;
Columbia, Mo.; and Sheboygan County,Wis.) at \$25 million per year; and
the new Transit in the Parks program for federal public lands at \$24
million per year for four years.

 

On another legislative front, NRPA advocates were floored when they
learned in February that the president proposed to terminate the Land
and Water Conservation Fund state assistance program in his 2006
Interior Appropriations Bill. Shocked NRPA members and advocates picked
themselves up and carried on the fight for LWCF to the halls of
Congress.\
 \
Advocates for parks and recreation at the local, regional and state
levels across the country, led by NRPA and its state affiliates, swung
into action. Key members of the appropriations committees in the House
and the Senate heard from constituents throughout their districts just
how important this far-reaching program was to small towns, communities
and states. When the Senate voted to approve a recommendation for \$30
million for LWCF state assistance in the Senate Interior Appropriations
Subcommittee report, advocates were heartened, but it wasn't over. There
still was a desperate fight waged to encourage the Appropriations
Conference Committee to accede to the Senate number.\
 \
The final result was that the Senate funding level was accepted. Sen.
Chairman Conrad Burns of Montana is owed a great vote of gratitude for
his leadership and perseverance, as well as to Reps. James McGovern
(D-Mass.), Rush Holt D-N.J.),Wayne Gilchrest (R-Md.), Peter King
(R-N.Y.), and Sens. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine).
However, the \$30 million for LWCF state assistance is about one-third
of the FY 2005 funding level.\
 \
NRPA members and advocates need to be aware that Congress seems to have
lost touch with how important the stateside matching grants are from the
LWCF. We need to re-educate the members of Congress on the true value of
this program in every community that receives or applies for such a
grant. Often times, the LWCF grant made the difference in whether a park
or recreation area could be built and opened to the public. Also, NRPA
members need to re-educate the president and his staff on the value of
the state assistance program, which has been funded at an average of
more than \$100 million per year under his administration.\
 \
While the funding for LWCF is inadequate, NRPA members and advocates can
take pride in their solid accomplishment of saving the program from
certain elimination. The Land and Water Conservation Fund state
assistance program will at least persevere, if not prosper, continuing
to make matching grants to worthy state and local park and recreation
projects across the country.\
 

In the transportation bill, by contrast, there is an outstanding level
of funding for bike, pedestrian and rail-trail projects, as well as
other transportation enhancements and demonstration projects that park
and recreation agencies in virtually every county in the nation are
eligible. As important as the funding is the knowledge that the bonds of
a strong nationwide coalition representing millions of citizens in
partnership for parks and recreation and healthy lifestyles will
continue to grow and strengthen. This is the true achievement and
victory for NRPA and its advocates this year.\
 \
*Richard J. Dolesh is the acting public policy director for NRPA's
Public Policy Division in Washington, D.C. He can be reached at
202.887.0290 or by e-mail at <rdolesh@nrpa.org>.*

**HOT Lanes a Tool, Not a Panacea**

www.environmentaldefense.org

09/21/2005

**New Report Calls For Tool to be Used Correctly; Groups Urge Officials
to Ensure HOT Lanes Won\'t Worsen Traffic and Sprawl**

Virginia has a unique opportunity to use High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes
to provide traffic-weary commuters with less congestion and more mass
transit options, according to a new report by the Breakthrough
Technologies Institute and Environmental Defense. But these benefits
must be managed properly to offset the potential negative impacts of HOT
Lanes, such as increased congestion on local roads, air pollution,
sprawl and inequity. The report is available at www.gobrt.org and
www.environmentaldefense.org/go/dctraffic.

HOT Lanes promise to keep some high speed lanes uncongested by limiting
them to buses and carpools, while allowing others to drive on them if
they pay a toll, which is set higher in peak hours. A portion of the
toll revenues would be invested in new express bus or bus rapid transit
(BRT) services, providing residents with an inexpensive alternative to
driving.

The new report focuses upon HOT lane proposals now being considered for
the Capital Beltway and I-95/395 south of Washington, and subject to a
September 21st public hearing in Woodbridge, Virginia. It found that a
BRT system operating on HOT lanes in Northern Virginia could attract
23,000 new daily transit riders, with 80 percent of new transit
commuters drawn from single occupant vehicles. The report offers
concepts for serving this market, including concepts for passenger
stations, vehicles, and system operations. The report also suggests ways
that current proposal should be improved, such as providing guaranteed
funding for new transit services and ensuring that land use planning is
conducted in a way that supports this investment.

"Combining HOT lanes with BRT can be a win-win," said Bill Vincent with
the Breakthrough Technologies Institute. "We need to start serious
planning now, before HOT lanes are approved without any public
transportation component."

\"Used properly, HOT lanes can clean the air, speed commutes and protect
open spaces from unwanted sprawl. But Virginia may end up using them to
finance bloated road expansion, more air pollution and sprawling new
development,\" said Michael Replogle, transportation director of
Environmental Defense. \"These HOT lanes should be used as a tool to
limit congestion, cut traffic growth, and pay for attractive transit
choices, including bus rapid transit.\"

Virginia could build on successful experiments with HOT lanes in
California, Texas, and Minnesota to help reduce congestion and manage
air pollution problems while increasing public transportation options
and mobility. The keys to getting the best performance out of HOT lanes
are:

\- Ensuring the Right Outcomes - State and local leaders should not
approve new HOT lanes without requiring a robust public transportation
element and dedicated funding to ensure that the project will meet
system performance standards to curb traffic and pollution problems.

\- Managing Side Effects -- HOT lanes and better transit should be
designed and managed as a system to ensure that they don\'t create
congestion on local roads that connect to the highway.

\- Considering Alternatives- Instead of just adding new HOT lanes,
officials should create BRT/HOT lane capacity at lower cost by adopting
more Rush Hour Lanes -- converting highway shoulders to managed travel
lanes during peak hours - and converting existing general purpose lanes
to toll managed lanes.

Article can be found at:
<http://www.environmentaldefense.org/pressrelease.cfm?ContentID=4787>

**Cutting Federal Highway and Transit Investment Not An Option to Offset
Hurricane Relief Costs**

9/22/2005

By: Dr. William Buechner and Matt Jeanneret, of the American Road &
Transportation Builders Association

There has been a good deal of focus over the past few days about the
costs of Hurricane Katrina and some have suggested using the federal
highway/transit improvement program funds contained in the new law
President Bush signed last month as a solution.

The American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) sent the
memo below to all congressional offices last night to put the issue in
context and show how each state would be impacted by such a move.

**Memorandum**

To offset the cost of providing needed assistance to states and
individuals devastated by Hurricane Katrina, some have suggested
repealing a portion of the highway and transit funds provided in the
recently enacted SAFETEA-LU measure. Specifically, there are calls to
repeal the congressionally designated projects contained in that
measure. Such a proposal would establish a dangerous precedent and
provide far less in actual savings than its proponents claim.

**Keep the Trust in the Highway Trust Fund:**

The federal Highway Trust Fund was created in 1956 to provide a
financing mechanism for surface transportation improvements. The trust
fund operates on a simple principle \-- those that use the nation\'s
highway and bridge network should pay for its upkeep and improvement.
Congress has codified this relationship in the last two highway and
transit program reauthorization bills. In fact, SAFETEA-LU utilizes all
available Highway Trust Fund revenues to support its \$286.5 billion in
highway, transit and safety improvements.

Repealing part of the funds provided under SAFETEA-LU would break this
financing principle by allowing revenues collected from transportation
system users to be utilized for purposes not related to the nation\'s
surface transportation network. Such a move would also establish a
damaging precedent that Highway Trust Fund revenues may be accessed for
future national emergencies. As such, the stability of the federal
transportation programs that assist state departments of transportation
in planning projects would be removed.

It is no more appropriate to utilize Highway Trust Fund revenues for
natural disaster assistance than it is for Social Security Trust Fund
revenues to be used for such a purpose.

**Repealing Earmarks Won\'t Deliver the Promised Savings:**

There are more than 6,000 congressionally designated projects in
SAFETEA-LU, totaling over \$24 billion. The vast majority of these
projects are contained in the High Priority Projects Program totaling
approximately \$14.8 billion, \$2.9 billion was already appropriated for
fiscal year 2005, leaving \$11.9 billion at risk. The remaining earmarks
are from discretionary highway programs administered by the U.S.
Department of Transportation and the public transportation program.
Repealing all of the earmarks in SAFETEA-LU will save far less than
proponents claim.

To provide an equitable distribution of highway funds among the states,
SAFETEA-LU creates a new Equity Bonus Program to ensure each state
receives either a minimum rate of return on its contributions to the
Highway Trust Fund or a minimum rate of growth. The program provides
funds directly to states to ensure they attain SAFETEA-LU\'s equity
goals.

The Federal Highway Administration estimates that eliminating the \$11.9
billion of High Priority Projects included in SAFETEA-LU for FY 2006-09
will automatically generate \$10.7 billion of Equity Bonus funds to the
states to meet the equity requirements of SAFETEA-LU. As such, total
funding available from repealing this program would be only \$1.2
billion. The only way to change this outcome would be to re-open
SAFETEA-LU\'s highway funding distribution formula.

**How States Would Be Impacted By Repealing Projects:**

The attached chart, created from Federal Highway Administration data,
shows the amount of High Priority Project funds each state would lose.
The chart also shows the amount of additional Equity Bonus funds that
states would receive if the High Priority Projects were repealed, and
the net impact of these two actions.

SAFETEA-LU guarantees every state will receive no less than 117 percent
of its average TEA-21 funding in FY 2005, rising to 121 percent by FY
2009. As the chart demonstrates, for five of the states currently at
this minimum level \--Connecticut, Hawaii, New Hampshire, New York and
Pennsylvania \-- every dollar cut by repealing the measure\'s High
Priority Projects will be made up entirely with Equity Bonus funds.

Much of SAFETEA-LU\'s public transportation program funds are dedicated
for specific projects, including the entire bus and bus facility program
and much of the New Starts program. As such, many public transportation
agencies would have to reduce operations and a number of ongoing subway
and rail construction projects would have to be suspended if the federal
government defaults on outstanding full funding grant agreements.

**Bottom Line:**

As our analysis shows, the savings from repealing SAFETEA-LU\'s
designated projects would be much less than expected and would fall
heavily on only a few states. It would also come at the expense of
long-term improvements in the nation\'s transportation infrastructure.

This article can be found online at:
<http://releases.usnewswire.com/printing.asp?id=53881>

A chart illustrating the State-by-State impact of a proposal to repeal
high priority projects can be viewed at:
<http://www.artba.org/hkop_chart.htm>

**Full speed ahead for transportation funds: APWA president examines
impact of the new bill**

Sep 1, 2005

On Aug. 10, President Bush signed the long-awaited \$286.4 billion
transportation bill --- titled the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and
Efficient Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)
--- allocating 30 percent more money over the next six years to improve
the condition and safety of the country\'s transportation networks. As
state and local governments gear up to put the money to work, Bob
Freudenthal, deputy general manager for the Hendersonville, Tenn.,
Utility District and incoming president of the Kansas City, Mo.-based
American Public Works Association (APWA), praises the bill\'s spending
limits but points out the need for alternative future funding sources.

**Q: Were there any provisions that APWA was supporting that did not
make it into the bill?**

**A:** APWA applauded enactment of SAFETEA-LU. It includes a number of
provisions which we supported and which will benefit cities and
counties. Overall, we believe the new act is an important step in the
right direction toward reversing years of underinvestment in our
transportation systems. But, given the tremendous infrastructure needs
we have at the local level, we need to be investing more. It is
critically important that more transportation funds be directed to
cities and counties, where local solutions can best be applied to
address local needs.

**Q: What transportation needs does the bill not address?**

**A:** One of SAFETEA-LU\'s strengths is that it builds upon the success
of its predecessor, TEA-21, by retaining its core structure and
essential intermodal goals. But our transportation system faces a
significant threat to its future: the ability to finance its growing
preservation, improvement and maintenance needs. Although SAFETEA-LU did
increase investment, it did not meet the levels the federal government
says are needed to improve our transportation network. It does, however,
recognize the need to be thinking about our current financing systems
and what should be done to ensure reliable, long-term funding sources
for transportation. The new act establishes a commission to examine the
transportation system\'s future needs and revenues sources.

**Q: How can local and state governments compensate for those
shortfalls?**

**A:** APWA and our members place a tremendous value on partnerships and
working together at the local, state and federal levels in the service
of our communities. I think local and state governments compensate for
any shortfalls by doing what we do best: by being responsive to the
needs of our communities, by building partnerships, by being innovative
and by implementing solutions that respect the unique needs and
qualities of our cities and counties.

**Q: Will the new safety program do enough to improve safety on the
nation\'s roads and highways?**

**A:** SAFETEA-LU elevates safety to higher priority and includes a
strong focus on improving roadway safety. It creates a new comprehensive
highway safety improvement program funded at \$5.1 billion. Under the
program, \$90 million annually is dedicated to infrastructure
improvements on rural roads. Another program, Safe Routes to School,
will provide \$612 million for improvements that will make walking and
bicycling to school safe and more appealing.

**Q: Some critics have said there are too many special projects in the
bill. Do local governments feel that the money was allocated fairly and
appropriately?**

**A:** It is unlikely special projects will ever be eliminated from
transportation bills. Their presence reflects the fact that so many
communities have tremendous transportation needs.

This article can be found online at:
<http://www.americancityandcounty.com/mag/government_full_speed_ahead/>