HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/21/1998, B-1 - FEDERAL INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT (ISTEA) REAUTHORIZATION, COMPARISON OF HOUSE AND SENATE VERSIONS & IMPLICATIONS S a* hluis Obisp -, Council of C _)-veru eats
Arravo Owdc
Regional Transportation Planning AgencyAIascaclero
0 /1 Grover Beach
Metropolitan Planning Organization Mom Bav
Congestion Management AcrP=Robles
ency
e' Pismo Beach
,.laid L.DC.ri,-Excutive Director State Census Data Affiliate San Luis OhispaSan Luis Obispo County
DATE: May 13, 1998
TO: Joint Meeting of the Cities and the County
All Council Members and Mayors,and Supervisors
FROM: Ronald L. DeCadi, Executive Director
SUBJECT: FEDERAL INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT (ISTEA)
REAUTHORIZATION, COMPARISON OF HOUSE AND SENATE VERSIONS & IMPLICATIONS
This report provides a synopsis of current efforts to reauthorize the Federal lntermo�dal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act(ISTEA)of 1991. It identifies key provisions of the bills and their implications to our region. Both the
House of Representatives and the Senate have passed their own versions of bills for the reauthorization. Both bills
provide a significant increase in funding over what was provided by ISTEA. The primary focus and structure of the
1991 ISTEA remains the same. Focus continues on Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) programming, and
a seamless intermodal transportation system.
A conference committee is now working to reach agreement on the find reauthorization to be submitted to the
President for his signature. It is anticipated that an agreement between all the parties will be reached by June or
July. The House version (HR 2400) is known as BESTEA,the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity
Act; the Senate version (S1173), is known as ISTEA 11. Attached are several tables, as follows: Table 1 provides a
breakdown of the funding provided by the now expired ISTEA, compared with BESTEA and ISTEA 11; Table 2
compares the program provisions of the three bills; Table 3 provides SLOCOG's 1998 Regional Transportation
mprovement Program (RTIP); Table 4 identifies funding targets for each jurisdiction to be programmed in August,
1998. Following is a synopsis of the major implications of both bills:
1. The total amount of funding increases by about 50% over what was provided by ISTEA. BESTEA provides
about $219 billion and ISTEA 11 about $217 billion. Unresolved issue: consistency with budget agreement
Some cuts are likely;funding increase reflected in Feb., 1998 SLOCOG programming(Table 3).
2. The House Bill includes about 1,500 'demonstration' projects with a total value of over $9.3 Billion, including
$12 million in San Luis Obispo County, the Senate version includes none. Unresolved issue: total amount of
'demo'projects and allocation via formula or'off-the-top'.
3. Funding for the Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) program is continued in both bills, project types
are expanded, but use is restricted. The Senate version allows 8% of STP funds to be used while the.House
version continues to use the current level of 10%. SLOCOG will conditionally program $2.7 million in August
subject to compliance with State guidelines.
4. The Surface Transportation Program (STP) expanded in both bills: the Housemersion by 73%, and the Senate
bill by 86%. SLOCOG will program funding in August, 1998 (Table 4 identifies targeted amounts). The
increased funding will be programmed in 1999.
5. The list of Metropolitan Planning factors is consolidated from the current 16 to 7, consideration is optional, the
requirement for completion of Major Investment Studies (MIS) is eliminated, and the Regional Transportation
Improvement Program(RTIP)update period is increased from 2 to 3 years.
6. Both bills provide for further streamlining of the overall programming an environmental review process.
1150 Osos Street. Ste. 202. San Luis Obispo.CA 93401 0 Tel. (805) 781-4219 Fax. (805) 781-5703
E-mail. slocog@slonet.org * Intemet. http://www.slonet.or-/—ipsiocos!
.
0 0 .o 0 o p CD
Q to C � LC) T7 m X00;:M CO ti O O N O
O
W V e N 00 ':�: CO� l) r O O _�' CCD N y — y U
Octto - `�S;,t:j.>_.:; � O co
ZW r_ ._.. _ � 2 C
O C
fid." C O fn
U) LO
[fj:..
r O L. 0 0 Cn Cn :OPO O O O <,0:.":O O �:. a = e C
F LU r _ >� M O r N 01.M M P•) O O M CO,'{O 14- \
Q m r CO V r - _CD-N O N N C''7_ a0 r C h
G o Caco
V cp
m C4 C C
Cj)G C G}'a m
C O 1� N Up O CD CO :CLir;:a M
01 f` co C6 v =Na r O ul O O r N'��Ci7.
`Q M N Ii i Cn M O O S N r_ r` ) w a CA
yQ �,--. 3-r C v .O Co .>' 7
O { ^.= a O C O
Lu
:rte ..-: W
C7 a o �009 0 0 0 ° e o :�0 31:0' c \> •� U CA
Q U) �a 5 0D o O r "co rn Q o O c M-A<- co r.;; to c o
Q �i �::< o o ., . ,,:• a ca c
W FW- O o r r N ti
co 1� p pLO
N e7 'n C+j aj. a C r O
e r CO r CA t0`: ti CO �? r �, ;M.�±CO: to co eCOC .r.
y mEE A N H
W acct:_:;;; g.7� Ct! r
m -fir r`�'_ _' >, � S cn
LLI
CL 0
Z o p 1;,..s c.: rn
0 o L o 0 o Cp 'o<0 0 0 0 0 o_o p :; O C o
N a — >1 CO N CO M =�?to O � o CC) (n o?'c,:N: p O
N �.. tC7 M COT N 00 r r N TCV?fux CO M J m U
z M r ..ta 7""' _ U �. C
z S ; � _T=; c U
V T m d
O U CO
m y Lr; 'h'rk;ti '�n? co 0 'a
> > H O N to CO Cn :fs_k O I� t31 N co iC0 0; CO �P O OCO
w
O7 to 00 CO O mf o O r O CO O- CO O' O ;� �•
W O Q co N N O co:r 'cr N O p co 7•"' N' CO N m U C y^,,
69
CL F C OcO F E
O
T y >
Z icc
�rtit C.
CC
C 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 ;C?.03 O ~ OC) a L
I.- CO Co O `ml r CO co CoO ':r=.r: N a
N _
N r W C'!)l r up) N r co0 to N:v c!) LC) U }, C
ca
CL
= = W O
LL W o
LL
w U U H H
Q ~ N O O O r r
-�3 p O N N r Q- d S C C (n "
N = h CO ';Mi- C D r M :;CV'.FI : O) f... MCc W W
(n m Q N r r LO N_ N N M r.;:,r: N C/� �- �- m
Z LLl N }.;:. �.:
:ate
as N CO Itt 0
a/ r„i _-_: •cps': N
a E �; C
Z
=7....LL
CL o ff a=i o f R o v,,
cc
LU
a 7 E
ts is di= A u. 7 0.
a e m •• n= .• .. ;
C L CA w .cc Ol w � 0 w ;�:y :y- w70
t C E C'sC:. 1 1
CD
Z 5 m to
u.
Table 2
ISTEA REAUTHORIZATION BILLS
Current Law (ISTEA) vs HR2400 (BESTEA) & S1173 (ISTEA II)
COMPARISON OF MAJOR PROGRAM PROVISIONS
# Program/Issue Current Law House Version Senate Version
1 Funding Period 6 years 6 years 6 years
2 Modes Included Hwys, Transit Hwys, Transit Safety, Hwys, Transit Safety,
Safety, Research Research & Rail Research,& Rail
Funding foi All' = Anngal $26 2 B FAnnual $36:6 I3rltion� Annual- 36.2'Bi I
c3+ - Programs s[ 'fofa7 _.$�F5�2B., Total ,,$213!6 Billion Tota[' ,$17.2 Bil[�on y
r i= F , (VHS, Interstate' —SametasilSTEA plus Fugh =;Same as IS"�A mus S4
Mamt ,:STP; ; 1 S 7v ] [ rJ
�O�erall Proram - cost interstate reconst., Border Crossings&Trade;
4 r, CMAQ, ITS, L
llro } - r
u--4 �=Structure -` S - ,<z Accessao Jobs,_$9 3 Brrt corndors, (emote sensrng
r = t Scenic Byways, for 1500+ 'demo' ro�ects ono ,'demo' p j ;yv
-
T ,rr Mass Transit
Emergency Relief
ER, MA;;old demos,Special
Programs Exempt (ER), Min ER, MA, old demos and
5 ,&High�Pnotity pro ects-andF
from funding limits Alloc.(MA), and --.:. r:. .,-- special projects
newFdemopro�ects
demo projects
2'ti�1
-Iiz �i3 r x-3n. - •- ¢'- .`.��s^ter J'� x --i , � �rovide $72 LB�Id npwYYt'+
_ il Provides$35 2B; designates „ ,_
; � "- - Interstate &Nri8t
Nat�ona�Hig?iinra _ , F 1 major lnfecmodaf �r � �
_ T r designates male ,P
G�stem t~SLOCOG -Provid'e l$26 4B ; connect ors;-allowststafes to r ry
,z z•�� { �, �� s r intermodal conritecto I
programmed rnY- avec 6=years �; " �assume�interstafe &non j allows sfafes to�assuiii
r -
. n9..8} v interstateo'versightI anferstatee'i no tip n er at%,
r Tc•Y.�` i.* •,�+ -c' I. � '` r` T r _n `res onsibilities A',}L
C
_ r y � s 2 _ r �P , roversighfiresporfsibrliUes,s;
.._.-.... .. �p DoT. - i. r:r'- __-.•_r:,_"iai�..-- _ s.:^._ y_ :'Cu
Surface r ProYlded $23B, 1
1� r �-- ,Provides $39 7B; requires Provtdes_$42 9Byreduees
Cdil OrffltfOrl re glredllat 10%
1 , ._ t q 7 khat 10% b- spent on TE , TE to 8%:of totahiand g r;es
7 Pragrami(STP) be spent on ',;r
- r and gives State:;oversight for :State overslght;foc'rto -
(S OCOGiwrllr EnFincements non NHS p�olects� _ � NHS prolercfs
fogram
Provided $16B and provides $26.88, allows Integrates program into
8 Bridge allowed 50% to be $100s annually for new Interstate & NHS
Replacement transferred to NHS discretionary projects Program with a total of
or STP $72.76
Provided 10% of Revises 10% safety
STP ($2.3B)for rail Provides 10% setaside, setaside, expands eligible
9 Highway Safety grade crossings authorizes $5.758 for High uses and transferability,
and hazard Risk Road Safety Program eliminates req'd grade
crossing percentage, make
elimination traffic calming eligible use
Provided $813 for Provides $10B for maint. provides $713 for maint.
Congestion projects in maint. and nonattainment are as, and nonattainment areas,
permits transfer of 50% of
10 Mitigation & Air and nonattainment increased funds to other with no transfer of funds to
Quality (CMAQ) areas; SLO Co. other programs; SLO co.
not eligible Fed. aid programs; SLO Co. not eligible
not eligible
Istea Reauthorization bills Page 2 of 3
# Program/Issue Current Law House Version Senate Version
Reduces_TE program
Requiredtfiat-10% ... -Retains T .... am ! setaside to8%of;STP• y.
Transportation _I of STP funds be y'setaside at 10% of STP;
,
rempves requirement for
Enh_ance�s en ts used forenv =I funds, increase proJect'types �T t,
�- (SLOCOGwIIf miti(�a5on -fo IrtcCude.#qunsf/welconie -~ . � g Public
-+.-�_ - .mss .I 1:�� ``7. �• �I4•• f .-( Z 4
- program Aug 98) pedesfrian, bicycle; centers and requires a direct
Y involvement andsets s,
- �_ sliding scale-for Federalas
and scenlhwys } transport lllnk
.
r
match
$30M per year
apportioned by
formula divided Provides $45M per year Provides average of
Recreational Trails 30% each for apportioned by formula; $2per year
12 Program motorized retains 30% project split; apportioned by formula;
retains 30% project split;
nonmotorized, & Federal share is 50%
Federal share is 80%
diverse projects.
50% Federal share
•rrti1 S
Needs must be considered 'x-
Projectsellgiblinfor + _ -
,3i on all new and
fundrrig through all g t Same as'House versjon but
major cate.odes; «reconstruction projects ex ands' farard eli `Inahon
13_ PP¢edesfn`art -� = 9 requires sludyswithAASRTO P r y z
r• _ must.sence bike �- Y.w ri, pito Include_hazardso
Projects r �- to amend hwy &{st,deslgn ��
- a transpo�tr at<on i F'c1} vlSt$ c s
to accommodated
r , ;x,.,s ;purpose - bfCyCfists ani ped'estnans�
i
--,-•� �-:T --.G�� .•� . _ ..-'C-`rY=_�S r+-..._`L-,. '�T i� -_� _ � _:._Si :-r�y, -'y..3Yt-• -Win
Lr ""Mandafed- Consolidates tfie
;+ Planning fact"' to
1 conslde�atlon of-16 � lSame as Eiouse version bud
MetEo ofI t n rPlanning facfors, r h ON.
makesconsldera tion prolecfs_peclfrc funding-:
reguiredMlS,set aptional,`ellminatestMgjor sources not re ulredfor
rkrFlannin'g � S - y q
_ F year fYscafly fnuest. Study(MIS) �, pfar or TIP,zpliminate9 MSS,
constralnedtTlP; r requirement, changes TIP as stand alone requirement
updated hienitlalLy Ff'update to'every:3 years'
S,
l
Provides $150M per year to
Welfare-to-Work fund 10 projects to assist
15 Program/Access to No Provision Welfare recipients gain Same as House version
Jobs Program access to jobs; two projects
to be located in urbanized
areas of less than 200,000
Established
program to Continues program as
Intelligent h lop Continues program as originally designed;
research &develop 16 Transportation ITS h parte originally designed; provides provides $120M for FY
Systems (ITS) Nation's art of $100M annually 1998 ($800M total for FY's
1998-2003}
system
•1
i'
Istea Reauthorization bills Page 3 of 3
# Program/Issue Current Law House Version Senate Version
- - Further streamlines
Set;m_ore flexible - ro ect a royal and
- y
requirements for P - PP f,
Program certlficat�on process, allows '
17 FFtWA oversight Same as House version`;
Streamlimng a - Stales to assume
project approvals
oversight res onsibilittes -_
z, nd:eertificaUon
—_ P-
`— - -a #or botli.NHSand non NHS - t-,
r _
—z _ : Pcovrdes concurrent, _._
coordinated env review Regwres::estabhshment'of-
Mamtained`basic = T
Environmental - ,process between Federal mfegrateddecision making,
18 project review ,
Streamlining agencies„allows ern!` process:between`Federat-:
nor
process 'rrponsibdities fo be andt State ageneses :
ff delegated to u. ao`8 States
Provided $5M per Provides $10M per year in Provides $5M set aside
year from FY's 93- FY's 98-2001 for corridor from full STP auth. each FY
19 High Speed Rail for Railway-hwy xing
97; $25M for demo planning; $25M per year for hazard elimination in 9 high
projects high speed rail technology seed rail corridors
Total:$29.4B Total: $36.66; preserves
$12.413 for capital ISTEA flexibility; allows use Total:$41.3B; allows
20 Transit Service and $17B for of funding for transit formula funds to be used
operations enhancements and for operations or capital
maintenance
Provides grants to Codifies program at$30M Codifies program at$19.3M
states for ping. and per year; to be designated per year; to be designated
maint. of scenic & must be State Scenic must be State Scenic historic byways;
Scenic Byways Byway; funds may be used Byway; funds may be used
21 Program for wide variety of for wide variety of
96 & 9 r year in 95, improvements, incl. passing improvements, incl. passing
96 & 97; 80 Fed. lanes, rest areas, bike/ped lanes, rest areas, bike/ped
share. lanes, etc. lanes, etc.
The Metropolitan Transportation Planning process shall provide for consideration of the
following factors:
1. Supporting the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global
competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency;
2. Increasing the safety and security of the transportation system for motorized and
nonmotorized users;
3. Increasing the accessibility and mobility options available to people and for freight;
4. Protecting and enhancing the environment and quality of life, coordinating land-use and
transportation plans and programs, and promoting energy conservation
5. Enhancing the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and
between modes, for people and freight;
6. Promoting efficient system management and operation; and
7. Emphasizing the preservation of the existing transportation system. J
r
l V* 0
c CO O f i O O O O r lC) r 0 COO
C w - f, O. m W N V O C., 10)
O Q C r N CO N r N N lC) IC1
LL r
e O o 0
++ o In
0 O
= p .0- p0 O O 00 O O O O O ONE
M CO r
O ++ o o p
a e 0 V O O
r �
v
O Nf.
r.-�. 0
m yi:'--O' O F W pO -'O 10 .'O 4 r lD .
r .p 'f•�."p.
�� --. N
04
m.. iti�Ir N r N
- -�- r - I -tl i - ' ( _.�' 'Coy
Im
Ile
E coso co ° T-.:....;.
-° C �tt
ICJ C O
(n U. 0 CO p O O O O O cc O O CN ti
O 0 Co
c r In 0 y
2 LL C� M m cc
ELfi �
�i .'+r t+co to 0 aN R O O O O Q7 Q R
E 0)O O .. rl-
R� O.N lco LO coO ^ O
p 0 to
M CV r N m R
QIP vz o N
CLM
O O O O O O N Z` O
d 2 m 0 O C O O N a) U o
� � a0UO r N � ti
a cj
O ° ti N o 0 0 0 = Irn o Imn o E E
(� V C N N Il O) N r r N CO C'7 O) I� V O ti O O
0 O ° V O O O r N r p
O � Nv °D a 6o
L Q O O
O 10 'O O O N M
O r; l!a r O CO 'co: O a a
r �.r N CO Cfl.O N �. ID r�' O pyp m
c � ...r irf -=r i N N C d p C
y
ct
W CO U —
O O 0 co 'CO
L m h a) V N UJ a'
O -� N � m ° c O •7
Nm w m C C
N m m L m a m � o -> N c E
U) m m m
ca 02 c� H m a. ,� m c S E c
° 0 xs c o LO c F- m m 10 -
r- a fj
E o a a o cJ c m " : :a °
_ ? ° a�°i a o y m uJ a y o m m y rn c y
O m 0 m ° ° y m c a m m p 2 m '' ° 0 m
c >. E Z a R R > N y c a> w
�d :+ C coi m Cc a y H p j - m N C y Q G L E LL U a
li O a y m « U O y (A m m (Q C y O c Q
a aci Q y O
IL m c E '� �ts z c m E � a Q E y a � w m mC) 0
oa W m a — o e M o m m m Y, m m .j
d m � _ � m e c c ° m Im ° ccow E m � �
~ ° C L ° 2 N E c J C ° N or m
cc ` O N R U R V E U) Mm c m mt J R U cm CoR CO
m a R Q d Z o t ° E m � ain Ri IQ- n Q y o
° a aa)
U a o � r m y F- a U) y a` m - a - O� c y c a
C °> > R 0 c
W Q c w d [� W °i � c W m f' m y !0
CO E R _ r m O O c .� a r' CO U > -M m V 0
O` Cn 4 �+ U F- C rn rn C' 'O a
N �`. ` m N U O !/� t m CO CO R m m O N R CL
C1 :ao
m 3 aRi o �o o a H H o o d e ¢ conz cc
Esc a z a w a � � ° zrNciv
::.
�- N C'7 7 O CO f� 00 O) O
r r /;
SAN LUIS OBIS O COUNCIL OF GOVIAIMENTS
Table 4
Transportation Project Funds
1997/98 thru 2002/2003
Surface Transportation Program (STP)
Adopted 6-Year Allocated Adopted
Jurisdiction 120% 90191 "Target" Nextea $'s "Target"
Cities
Arroyo Grande 70,356 422,136 0 422,136
Atascadero 114,816 688,896 110,000 578,896
Grover Beach 56,238 337,428 0 337,428 .
Morro Bay 44,928 269,568 213,199 56,369
Paso Robles 99,528 597,168 57,000 540,168
Pismo Beach 37,986 227,916 0 227,916
San Luis City 194,766 1 ,168,596 0 1 ,168,596
Total Cities 618,618 3,711 ,708 380,199 3,331 ,509
County
Cambria (urb) 25,428 152,568 0 152,568
Los Osos (urb) 66,612 399,672 0 399,672
Nipomo (urb) 39,780 238,680 0 238,680
Oceano (urb) 29,562 177,372 0 177,372
Unincorp Rural 578,000 3,468,000 0 3,468,000
Total County 739,382 4,436,292 0 4,436,292
Cities & County 1 ,358,000 8,148,000 380,199 7,767,801
Regional Funds ` 754,-000F 4,524,000- 1 ,466,288 r 3,057,T12_
Sub-Total STP 1 2,112,000 112,672,0001 11846,487 1 109825,513
Trans. Enhance. Activities (TEA) ($452k/yr for 6-years) 29712,000
Grand Total STP & TEA Funding 131537,513
Statewide Discretionary Funding
State Env. Enhance. Mitigation (EEM) Funds (6-years) 1,250,000
t
a
S