May 3, 2001
GSPA453
University of Missouri-Columbia
Winter 2001
Public Policy Analysis
Wilkins, Vicky M. Wang, Yongmei. Liu,
Pei. Fujikawa, Tadahiro. Hong, Jae-Woo
Research
Project: Background Report of Transportation Act
In the last decade, Americans
have witnessed a revolution in transportation planning. With the passage of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Equity Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and the
Transportation Equity Act – 21 (TEA-21) in 1998, states have the freedom to
choose how to spend billions of dollars of transportation funds. Money that was
once designated on highways can now be allocated to bicycle and pedestrian
projects, transit facilities and even scenic or historic preservation programs.
Under the Transportation Enhancement program, concerns for the whole
environment, attention to the human scale, and an emphasis upon areas of
natural beauty, both inside the city and beyond its borders, are essential to
the planning of new transportation projects.
The
objective of this report is to provide the reader with an overview of the
Transportation Enhancement program. To achieve this objective we will first
discuss the two pieces of Federal legislation, which created and expanded the
Transportation Enhancement (TE) program. Next, we will examine Missouri’s TE
program and highlight challenges associated with administering this program in
a “highway” state. Finally, we will how other states administer their TE
programs.
Federal Action and the Creation of Transportation Enhancement Programs
1965 Highway Beautification Act
The origin
of Transportation Enhancement idea can be traced back to the 1960s. Under Lady
Bird Johnson’s campaign efforts to preserve the scenic beauty of America’s
highways, in 1965, Congress passed the Highway Beautification Act (HBA), one of
the first modern environmental laws.
The Act was
originally designed to prohibit construction of new billboards on scenic and
rural federal-aid highways, and to require the removal of illegal billboards
(those erected without proper permits). On November 4, 1965, the White House
announced the first allocation of Federal funds to the States under the highway
beautification program. The sum of $6 million was allocated for the control of
junkyards and outdoor advertising, and $60 million was allocated for
landscaping and scenic enhancement (Remarks 1965).
The efforts spread quickly
to all over the country. Millions of citizens got involved. Among American
cities there are many examples of what can happen with imaginative planning.
For instance, Philadelphia found a way to depress its new Delaware River
Expressway and put a pedestrian plaza on top to connect the city to its
waterfront. It makes a statement that “People matter, not just traffic.”
Ghirardelli Square in San Francisco is a marvel of attractions and surprises
for the strolling shoppers. Niccolet Mall in Minneapolis is inviting, lively
commercial area built to make shopping a pleasure (Johnson and Lees 1988).
Summary of Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
Almost 30 years later the dreams of Lady Bird Johnson and others were realized when the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) was signed into law in December 18, 1991. ISTEA was viewed as “the first major highway act of the post interstate highway construction era ”(Fischer 1997). The act was established as landmark legislation for new transportation policy to lead fiscal accountability, system preservation, local control, balanced transportation investment, and to develop concern for communities and environment involved in national transportation policy. In addition ISTEA gives state and local governments a larger role in the establishment of transportation policies within their jurisdictions. State and local government officials can now participate in the selection of projects in their localities, although they are still subject to numerous federal regulations.
The ISTEA of 1991 established several new small programs by authorizing the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and established a new process for administering the STP (Office Quality 1997). The provisions for administering the STP are contained in 23 USC 133 (e) (see attached) and allowed the States to administer it on a program level instead of the traditional project level (Office Quality 1997). In the act, several new programs such as Transportation Enhancement, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ), Highway Use Tax Evasion, Scenic Byways and Construction of Ferryboats& Ferry Terminal Facilities were enacted. The project scope of these programs was different, and the dollar value of the projects was significantly smaller than the conventional highway programs. The majority of these small federal-aid programs projects were under one million dollars, and they were treated separately from the NHS. These new programs provided all levels of government and the private sector with the opportunity to work together to plan and develop intermodal transportation systems. Intermodal transportation systems involve various forms of transportation that are both integrated and interconnected while tailored to the specific needs of particular geographic areas (MoDOT 2001).
The Surface Transportation Program identified fourteen types of transportation projects for which a state could obligate funds. Included among these projects were transportation enhancement activities. ISTEA required that states direct at least 10 percent of their Surface Transportation Program funds toward transportation enhancement activities, which go beyond the normal elements of a transportation improvement project. According to ISTEA, these funds can only be used for transportation enhancements and diverted to other construction projects. ISTEA specified ten eligible transportation enhancement activities: (1) pedestrian and bicycle facilities, (2) acquisition of scenic and historic sites, (3) scenic and historic highway programs, (4) landscaping, (5) historic preservation, (6) rehabilitation of historic transportation, (7) preservation of abandoned transportation corridors, (8) archaeological planning and research, (9) control and removal of outdoor advertising, and (10) mitigation of water quality impacts from roadway runoff.
All of the programs in ISTEA were federal grant programs, whereby the Federal Government collected taxes on motor fuel and other highway-related tax revenues, which have been deposited into the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). The funds are then distributed to states and other transit authorities for capital construction, highway and transit research and research applications, and motor carrier safety programs.
The enactment of the ISTEA has been controversial and the focus of intense advocacy among supporters involved in the transportation policy. The act was legislated through a national coalition of many groups/associations who were committed to ensuring and requesting various programs on the basis of their own political goals or objectives (Fischer 1997).
The ISTEA involved local public agencies (LPAs) in the project selection process, and it expanded eligibility of the LPAs to deal with some other non-traditional types of projects. The LPAs including State Department of Transportation (DOT), State Highway Administration and Metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) were therefore important sponsors executing the act. They have been favorable toward the ISTEA’s formulation not only because the act were supposed to offer the agencies’ opportunities and authorities to implement non-traditional transportation projects by showing off routes, by interpreting and preserving scenic resources, and providing supplemental facilities for non-motorized travel, but also because millions dollars would be available to their own sponsored projects. National transportation organizations such as The American Association of State Highway and Transportation have also supported the ISTEA.
In addition to these mainstream sponsors, a lot of new
agencies and organizations such as advocacy groups, recreational organizations,
historical societies, garden clubs, environmental organizations and civic
associations were involved in the legislation as the project sponsors. As
political and social support for overall social welfare including human health
and environment protection has been increasing rapidly, the number of these
interest groups grow nationwide. Dozens of special interest groups including
tourists, civil engineers and construction companies have been interested in
the act, and hired lobbyist to get money out of the ISTEA.
In addition to shifting emphasis of political value from conventional hardware investment including highway construction to sustainable transportation methods for environmental protection and human health, the ISTEA established an entirely new process for transportation and urban planning decision-making (Fischer 1997). In the past, State DOTs have exclusively controlled federal transportation money. However, under the ISTEA, the decision-making was put in the hands of the lower level/regional governments and citizen groups who have been concerned with projects on their own lists of priorities.
Under
the act, the states were systematically obligated to set aside a specific
percentage of federal funds for some programs to mitigate the effects of
highways and habitat destruction. In the Transportation Enhancement Program of
Surface Transportation Program (STP), which is like a state block grant
program, for example, the state has to set-aside 10 percent of $2.1 billion of
the federal fund from 1992 through 1996 (Fischer 1997). Herein, the states
could spend around 90 % of the available funds in traditional highway accounts
such as the Interstate Maintenance, National Highway System, and Bridge
Accounts. On the other hand, the 10% set aside is reserved for activities
relevant to comprehensive environmental policies.
Upgrading of 1991 ISTEA
With expiration of the 1991 ISTEA in October 1997, Congress began to struggle with reauthorization. The reauthorization process involved numerous members of Congress, interest groups and local officials coming together to formulate a new proposal. Not only building up a vision for the future of surface transportation system but also balancing the diverse, regional and economic interests. In 1997, not only the administrative office but also members of Congress who represents various regional interest and philosophical constituencies offered ISTEA reauthorization proposals.
The reauthorization bill can be classified as two general policy frameworks. One position is that the 1991 ISTEA was favorable and a valuable guide for future federal aid transportation policy. In this view, refinement, enhancement, and improvement of the act are supported, while major changes are not seriously deliberated. Particularly, the programs that satisfy significant national goals, such as clean air, are prioritized as special legislative treatment.
On the other hand, some proposals focused on the deficiency
of the act including bureaucratic system and various constraints. In this view,
decentralization in the federal-aid program is emphasized. Some proponents of
this position think that needs of national level are important, but state/local
authority and control should be improved as much as possible for satisfying
their needs appropriately. Within this second view, many differing opinions
about how to structure legislation to meet identified national needs.
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century
In Congress,
ISTEA reauthorization was the main theme during spring 1997. More than seven
bills are introduced through hearings and budget votes. The debate centered
around three primary issues: total funding levels, how the money should be
divided among the states, and the structure of federal transportation programs.
Congress struggled with whether to spend down the Highway Trust Fund which
contained an un-spent balance of $22 billion, or live with only modest
increases in transportation spending in order to achieve a balanced federal
budget (NTEC 1997).
The
suggested proposals had various impacts on the Transportation Enhancement
program. The House STEP-21 program would eliminate the TE set-aside, but retain
Transportation Enhancement Activities as eligible projects for Surface
Transportation Program funding. The House ISTEA Works bill would retain the 10
percent TE set-aside and bump up funding to approximately $750 million a year.
Enhancements funding under ISTEA had averaged $430 million annually (NTEC
1997).
On December
1, 1997, President Clinton signed Short – TEA into law, releasing $5.5 billion in new money to the states for
ISTEA programs. About $163 million of the new funds were dedicated to TE
activities (NTEC 1998a). In addition to providing new money, Short-TEA
introduced new transferability provisions for TE funds. Between December and
May 1, 1998 states could transfer any new funds or un-obligated balances from
any ISTEA program to any other program. For example, funds could be transferred
from a state’s Enhancements account to its National Highway System (NHS)
account to fund a highway construction project (NTEC 1998a). Short-TEA also
calls for restoration of all transfers upon enactment of a new long-term authorization
bill, essentially making the transfers loans.
TEA-21
In March 1998, after considerable wrangling over formula issues and amendments that threatened ISTEA’s environmental programs, the Senate approved S. 1173 (TEA-21) which provides for $214 billion in transportation authorizations over the next six years, a 38 percent increase over ISTEA (NTEC 1998b). The new bill would make a total of $3.8 billion available for TE projects, an increase of 46 percent. This is achieved despite the fact that the bill reduces the TE program set-aside from ten to eight percent of Surface Transportation Program funding. Annual TE funding would jump from approximately $430 million a year under ISTEA to $640 million under ISTEA-21 (NTEC 1998b).
The Senate’s bill included three changes to the TE
program that would enable states to offer project sponsors a more
customer-friendly approach to project implementation: 1) dropping requirements
for the Advance Payment Option, 2) making the Alternative Share provisions
permanent, and 3) adding a clarification to TE category 3 – Scenic and Historic
Highway Programs (NTEC 1998).
1). The
advance payment option was made available as a result of the 1995 National
Highway System Designation (NHS) Act, to enable states to advance federal TE
funds to cash-strapped project sponsors who themselves are paying TE
engineering or construction contractors. ISTEA-2 would eliminate the
requirement that states use an advisory committee with representatives from the
public for TE project selection, as a condition for exercising the advance
payment option.
2). TEA-21
would make permanent the innovative finance provision initiated in April 1995
known as Alternative Share. Alternative share allows states to undertake TE
projects using 100 percent federal funds. By allowing TE projects to be
structured using federal funds for 100 percent of a project’s cash
requirements, funds from any non-USDOT Federal agency, and a wide variety of
other contributions that the Secretary determines are of value, are considered
over and above the 100 percent federal share, but are still credited as local
match.
Additionally,
states are allowed to account for traditional matching funds on a multiple
project, or program-wide basis, so that over-match on some projects can allow under-match
on others, as long as the state’s total authorized non-federal share
requirement is met. In general, the Alternative Share provisions have allowed
states to give themselves and local agency project sponsors a wider range of
options for meeting the general requirements for a non-federal project buy-in.
3). TE Activity Category 3 would be changed to read: Scenic
or Historic Highway Programs (including the provision of tourist and welcome
center facilities).
Under
TEA-21, transportation enhancement activities continue to be funded through a
10 percent set aside from surface transportation program (STP) funds. In order
to maximize the use of available TE funding, TEA-21 provides innovative
financing alternatives for meeting matching requirements. The list of activities eligible for TE funds was expanded. Newly eligible
are safety education activities for pedestrians and bicyclists, establishment
of transportation museums, and projects to reduce vehicle-caused wildlife
mortality. Provision of tourist and welcome center facilities is specifically
included under the already eligible activity “scenic or historic highway
programs.” In addition, 1 percent of the transit urbanized area formula funds
distributed to areas with populations greater than 200, 000 must be used for
transit enhancement projects specified in the Act.
Moreover,
the new bill allows a State to transfer some of its TE funds to other programs.
The maximum amount that may be transferred is up to 25 percent of the
difference between the State’s current year TE set aside and the State’s FY
1997 TE set aside.
Bicycle
Transportation and Pedestrian Walkways Under TEA-21
TEA-21
continues and expands provisions to improve facilities and safety for bicycles
and pedestrians. The eligibility of NHS funds is broadened to include
pedestrian walkways, and safety and educational activities are now eligible for
TE funds. Other changes ensure the consideration of bicyclists and pedestrian
in the planning process and facility design.
Recreational
Trail Programs Under TEA-21
A total of
$270 million in contract authority is authorized for FYs 1998-2003 to provide
and maintain recreational trails. States must establish a State recreational
trails advisory committee that represents both motorized and non-motorized
recreational trail users. Of funds distributed to a State, 30 percent must be
used for motorized use, 30 percent must be used for non-motorized use, and 40
percent must be used for diverse trail uses (any combination—the diverse category may
overlap with the others). The Federal share is raised to 80 percent (from 50
percent), and Federal agency project sponsors or other Federal programs may
provide additional Federal share up to 95 percent. Soft match provisions are
allowed, including soft matches from public agencies. The National Recreational
Trails Advisory Committee is reactivated until the end of FY 2000.
National
Scenic Byways Program Under TEA-21
TEA-21
authorizes a total of $148 million for technical assistance and grants to
States for the purposes of developing scenic byway programs and undertaking
related projects along roads designated as National Scenic Byways, All-American
Roads, or as State Scenic Byways.
Transportation
and Community and System Preservation Pilot Under TEA-21
The
Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot program is a
comprehensive initiative of research and grants to investigate the
relationships between transportation and community and system preservation and
private sector-based initiatives. States, local governments, and metropolitan
planning organizations are eligible for discretionary grants to plan and
implement strategies that improve the efficiency of the transportation system;
reduce environmental impacts of transportation; reduce the need for costly future
public infrastructure investments; ensure efficient access to jobs, services,
and centers of trade; and examine private sector development patterns and
investments that support these goals. A total of $120 million is authorized for
this program for FYs 1999-2003 (NTEC 1998b).
Nationwide Spending of Transportation
Enhancements
In February 1997, the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (RTC) released the eleventh update of its report “ISTEA Transportation Enhancements: Summary of Nationwide Spending.” The report identifies over 7,000 TE projects programmed by state DOTs and MPOs totaling $2.1 billion. In late December, FHWA released the FY1997 apportionments for the Surface Transportation Program, including a $600 million apportionment for Enhancements. The cumulative TE apportionment under ISTEA (92-97) totaled $2.663 billion (NTEC 1997).
RTC project
award data shows that over 80 percent of TE funds have been programmed for
specific projects, as of February 1, 1997. However, RTC data is not current for
some states including Hawaii, Nevada, North Carolina, South Caroline, West
Virginia and Utah. Thus, RTC estimates that, to-date, over 90 percent of
available TE funds have been programmed. The report also shows that as of
February 1, 1997 only three states had obligation rates over 75 percent: New
York, New Mexico and District of Columbia. Other states above 70 percent
include Florid, Wyoming, Colorado, Washington, Maryland, Kentucky, Connecticut,
and Puerto Rico. The data also shows that fifteen states have TE obligation rates
under 40 percent, including Idaho, Vermont, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Arizona,
Indiana, Virginia, Delaware, Texas, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Louisiana, and
Missouri (NTEC 1997)
As of
September 30, 1999, according to a new report by the National Transportation
Enhancements Clearinghouse (NTEC), the state Departments of Transportation have
only obligated 65.5% of all available Transportation Enhancements funds, making
1999 the fourth year in a row that obligations did not reach 70% nationwide (NTEC
2000). Since obligation rates represent the federal commitment to spend money
on a specific project, and usually occurs when a project is ready to be built,
this low obligation rate suggests that TE project sponsors and DOTs face
obstacles to swift project implementation.
The report entitled “Transportation Enhancements:
Summary of Nationwide Spending and Policies” documented more than 10,758
programmed projects in the eight-year life span of Enhancement Program,
providing $3.62 billion dollars to TE projects. Including NTEC’s documented TE
programming and its estimate that $400 million has been programmed but not
captured in NTEC’s database, NTEC estimates that almost 95% of the $3.83
billion in available funds has been programmed for specific projects (NTEC 2000).
Table 1 above shows that from 1992 to 1999, National Highway System Funds were obligated at 100 % and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement funds were obligated at 78%. Both of these funds are part the Surface Transportation Program like TE. Achieving a 90% TE obligation rate would put TE on par with other federal-aid highway programs, but NTEC estimates that this would require states to obligate $3.5 billion over the next four years, 1.3 times as much as they obligated over the first eight years of the TE program (Patten 2000).
The report also indicates that despite the low national obligation rate, eight states plus Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia have obligated over 80% of their available funds, including Alaska, Florida, Wyoming, Washington, Connecticut, New Mexico, Vermont, and New Jersey. Ten others have obligated less than 55%, including California, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Massachusetts, Virginia, Missouri, Texas, Louisiana, and Wisconsin. The statistic also show that 54% of funds have gone to bicycle and pedestrian and trail projects; 26% to historic preservation and historic highway programs; 19% to landscaping, acquisition of scenic easements, billboard control and scenic highway programs; and 1% to mitigation of highway runoff and provision of wildlife crossings (Patten 2000).
Figure 2
illustrates a trend that may suggest a need for even greater concern. For three
years, FY 1995-97, states were able to obligate about $427 million annually,
however in FY1998 and FY1999 annual obligations dropped to the $360 million
level. This is a significant drop. Based on Federal estimates of the four
remaining TE apportionment, states would have to obligate $2.35 billion over
the next four years to achieve the 75 percent goal.
Low
obligation rates lead to the low reimbursement rates. As of September 30, 1999,
only 43.9 percent of available funds have been actually reimbursed, i.e. paid
out of the Federal treasury (10). In simple terms, this means more than two years
since the close of ISTEA the states have finished spending just 60 percent of
the TE money. It is important to note that reimbursement take place only after
obligations.
According
to the FY 1999 final report on Transportation Enhancement (p.18), a number of
other factors may contribute to the significant difference in obligation rates
compared to the rate of reimbursement. Once a project is obligated, many
intervening factors may come into play before a project is built and invoices
for the completed job are processed. The project development and implementation
processes present many complexities. Some examples may include a local
political decision to abandon the project, inaccurate or low cost estimates
which causes project delays, the project may be shelved for a period due to
lack of sufficient match dollars and local support, discovery of environmental
impacts, mitigation of impacts to historic properties, or compliance with
procurement and design specifications. Any combination of factors can delay a
project and thus the reimbursement of costs associated with its completion.
Missouri’s
Transportation Enhancement Programs
In Missouri federal transportation legislation is interpreted and implemented by the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission (MHTC). The Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission is a six-member bi-partisan board that guides the Missouri Department of Transportation. Commission members are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate. No more than three commission members may be of the same political party. The term on the commission is six years. When ISTEA first passed in 1991 the MHTC resisted to allocating funds for the Transportation Enhancement Program until 1993. This resistance was primarily a reaction to the fact that the funds available for highways and bridges were shrinking. In a highway intense state like Missouri the Commission felt the funds could be better spent on highway or bridge programs. To avoid allocating funds the MHTC interpreted the ISTEA to mean that if the Congressional Budget Committee set Missouri’s transportation obligation limitation[1] at 90% of the original amount suggested by Congress the 10% withheld was interpreted to the Transportation Enhancement funds. In 1992 the Federal Highway Commission cracked down and required the MHTC to allocate 10% of the funds apportioned to a state under the STP for a fiscal year to transportation enhancement activities (Ball 2001). The Federal Highway Commission also required that Missouri make up the funding not allocated in 1991 and 1992. This put immense pressure of the Missouri Department of Transportation who had to allocate additional funds and try to oversee additional projects at a time when they were just learning how to administer the program (Ball, 2001). In July of 1992 the Commission unanimously approved the following policy related to federal funds designated for enhancement purposes:
1. It is the intent of the Commission to emphasize landscaping activities as a priority on freeways or expressways in cities with populations of 5,000 or more. Seventy-five percent of the available enhancement funds are to be used for landscaping activities on freeways or expressways in cities with a population exceeding 5,000.
2. A long-range program of prioritized projects will be developed by giving due consideration to geographic distribution of projects. Applicants for enhancement funds must be a local government entity. Applications will be accepted at any time and programmed as appropriate.
3. For a project to be considered for the priority list, it must be eligible under the Surface Transportation Program.
4. Federally mandated activities that can be financed with enhancement funds shall receive a high priority in a program of eligible projects.
5. In order to fund the greatest number of projects proposed by outside agencies or groups, enhancement funds for each project shall be limited to 80 percent of the estimated cost.
The following additions were made to the policy on Transportation Enhancement Funds in 1993:
1. Geographic Distribution of Funds: Transportation Enhancement Funds will be
distributed to each of Missouri’s 10 transportation districts according to the percentage of total population.
2. Maintenance: Each applicant will be responsible for maintaining its own project, as it pertains to both safety and aesthetics. A procedure developed by the Department of Transportation will be included in the contract setting out the Department’s right to remove a project that is not maintained, regardless of ownership of the right-of-way on which it is located. Projects involving tree and shrub plantings on Department right-of-way will be the responsibility of local governments until all conditions set out in the contract pertaining to planting warranty, growth of the plants, species, etc., have been met.
3. Applications from State Agencies: State agencies will be eligible to apply for transportation enhancement funds. Applications from state agencies must include a resolution from the local governing councils supporting the project.
4. Limit of Funds: Generally, the amount of funds obligated to a particular project will not exceed 50% of the total Transportation Enhancement Funds available for the district. This percentage may be exceeded as availability of funds and extenuating circumstances allow. There will be no limit on the number of years a project may receive funds or the size of the project (Minutes 1993).
MHTC established these rules pertaining to Application Submittals and Ratings:
1. Applications will be rated on an annual basis. (see attached Application)
2. Applications that are not funded may be resubmitted in future funding cycles. They will not automatically be carried forward for future consideration nor be given extra credit for being resubmitted.
3. Each member of the selection committee will rate each application independently. The final rating will be a composite of the individual ratings (see attached Recommended Enhancement Funds Program Rating System).
4. A project must receive at least one half plus one of the total possible points.
Missouri has chosen to uses a Transportation Enhancement Funds Selection Committee to evaluate project applications but the final approval of project is made by the MHTC.
The following agencies are currently represented on the selection committee, which select transportation enhancement projects to fund:
1. Missouri Municipal League
2. Missouri Association of Counties
3. Missouri Department of Natural Resources
4. Columbia Metropolitan Planning Organization
5. Springfield Metropolitan Planning Organization
6. Joplin Metropolitan Planning Organization
7. St. Joseph Metropolitan Planning Organization
8. MoDOT Maintenance Division
9. Federal Highway Administration
10. MoDOT Preliminary Studies Division
11. MoDOT Office of Transportation Program Management
Although the MoDOT enjoys the flexibility and control offered by ISTEA and TEA-21, it has struggled to administer the complex Transportation Enhancement program. This struggle is most evident in Missouri’s low obligation rates, which for FY 1999 was just over 40% ranking Missouri 49th in the nation. In a questionnaire emailed to representatives from the Missouri Department of Transportation, several challenges to the administration of the Transportation Enhancement program in Missouri were identified:
1. Lack of understanding of the process by project sponsors extended the timelines for both state sponsored and local sponsored projects.
2. Learning curve – teaching entities that were used to receiving block grant funds that this program is reimbursement program. The DOT is not going to just cut them a check.
3. Projects sponsors who are not familiar with the environmental laws surrounding federal aid projects.
4. The time and resources required administering the program. Transportation enhancement project are smaller in scope and dollar value than traditional highway projects, but there is an increased number of projects and new partners.
5. MoDOT lacks a clear direction on “what is the direction of transportation in Missouri.” This should be partially resolved by MoDOT’s long-range plan, which should clearly articulate to the public and MoDOT staff the importance of non-highway transportation activities (Questionnaire 2001)
Additionally, representatives from MoDOT offer the following explanations for Missouri’s low obligation rate:
1. A lack of understanding of the process by project sponsors.
2. Projects are a low priority for sponsors.
3. MoDOT’s red tape overwhelms the sponsor.
4. Delay in allocating funds (1991 to 1993) started the whole program out behind.
5. A lack of understanding of the process by MoDOT staff administering the program.
6. Dealing with agencies that have never been involved with the federal aid process.
7. Unlike some state DOTs, who choose to use the enhancement dollars themselves, MoDOT elects to “sub-allocate” funds.
8. MoDOT reviews enhancement projects using highway standards – “we review everything as if it could structurally fail and hurt someone – including flower planters.”
9. MoDOT does not have a statewide trail system plan.
10. MoDOT does not have bicycle design standards in place.
11. Over administration by MoDOT – “too much of a watch dog mentality (Questionnaire 2001).
As the discussion of challenges clearly demonstrates the majority of the barriers faced by MoDOT regarding the administration of the Transportation Enhancement program appear to be related more to the “transportation culture” in Missouri than the actual procedures used. Unfortunately, the culture may be the most difficult barrier to overcome and involves teaching members of the MHTC and staff of MoDOT to expand their view of transportation projects to include these new less traditional programs unrelated to highways and bridges. The initial resistance to TE programs by the MHTC seems to have had a lasting impact on the program in Missouri.
A constitutional amendment currently being considered by the Missouri legislature could have a dramatic impact on the TE program. This proposed amendment (HJR 15) changes the Director of Transportation to the Secretary of Highways and Transportation and the MHTC to a Bipartisan Advisory Council, dramatically decreasing their authority. The Secretary of Highways and Transportation would be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. The Bipartisan Advisory Council would be appointed by the Governor and consist of 10 members, one from each Congressional district and one at large.
Transportation Enhancement Programs In Other States
1. State Programs-how they differ:
General Guidelines
Though the federal statute describes eligible categories for the TE program with interpretive guidance from FHWA, state transportation agencies retain most of the responsibility of administering TE programs. Each state devises its own application and selection process, establishes selection criteria and adopts methods to streamline the development and management of projects. Each state also has a unique funding level for TE through 2003, based on a formula set in TEA-21.
1.1 Eligibility and
project selection procedures:
Not all states consider every transportation enhancement activity to be eligible for funding. Some states combine the 12 categories of activities into fewer eligible groups such as non-motorized transportation, scenic beautification, historic preservation and environmental mitigation. Other states programs include additional restrictions that do not allow funding of certain categories and projects (NTEC 1999. 8).
There is a mix of decision-making processes across the fifty states: some states uses their Transportation Commission for final approval, some use the Governor or Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Transportation (DOT), and some yield sole authority to sub-state entities such as state DOT Regional Administrators, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) or new entities established for the sole purpose of deciding how to spend transportation funds. The direct involvement of state legislatures is less common, however, a number of states include selected legislators among those that serve on Advisory Committee (NTEC 2000a 18)
1.2 Application Policies
The vast majority of states have an open project application process. Most states either encourage or require non-profit organizations to partner with a government entity or taxing authority when applying for TE funds. Some states DOTs may be limited by state law in contracting directly with non-governmental entities for the delivery of projects. However a few states do allow non-governmental organizations to apply for funds without a governmental partner or endorsement.
1.3 Selection Criteria
To ensure projects contribute to local priorities and are feasible, states may use formal factors to score or rank applications.
· At least 12 states have a regular matching rate of 20 percent or less.
· 29 states have policies determining that sponsors who offer “over match” will receive added consideration in the evaluation of their proposal for funding.
· Some states screen for minimum or maximum award amounts per project or per sponsor during a given funding cycle: 15 states have funding award maximums, ranging from $400,000 to $ 1.5 million; 13 states have funding award minimum, ranging from $10,000 to $ 100,000.
· A large number of states have established programmatic financing policies at their own option or in order to comply with state laws. For example, 26 states set aside a percentage of funds for a special project selection process or special project type (NTEC 2000a).
·
1.4 Cycles of selection and funding
Some states evaluate TE projects continuously, while others review and select projects quarterly, annually or biennially. Thirty-six states report that they make project-funding awards on an annual basis. Ten states make funding decision every two years; four states dole out funds on a continuous basis, and Texas and Rhode Island select projects every 3 and 6 years, respectively (NTEC 2000a 19).
1.5 Advisory Committees.
|
Most states have advisory committees who oversee the selection of projects, but the duties, composition and appointment of these committees vary considerably. In some states the Governor or a state agency appoints the advisors. Some advisors represent non-governmental organizations or a variety of state agencies. Advisory committee duties run the gamut from reviewing and evaluating project applications, to setting policy, to giving final approval for selected projects. Many states also involve their metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and rural districts in the selection process, and a handful of states delegate the selection process to regional advisory committee (NTEC 2000a 19). · 40 states have Advisory Committees involved in project review, evaluation and selection · In 15 of these 40 states, the Advisory Committee includes only DOT personnel and/or representatives of other governmental bodies-no citizens at-large or representatives of public interest groups or organizations are included. Twenty-five states allow citizen representatives on Advisory Committees. At least four states – Idaho, Delaware, Ohio, and North Carolina - have recently boosted the public interest community’s participation in the project selection process. However in a few states citizen representation is minimal. · Four states that do not use Advisory Committees in project selection provide for effective public participation in funding decision at the regional or MPO level – Montana, Connecticut, Minnesota, and Florida (NETC 2000a 25). 1.6 Streamlined Project Development All states develop procedures to ensure that projects comply with federal laws intended to protect human and natural resources. FHWA offers streamlined project development or flexibility, in some of the review requirements. Many states use at least one or two of these measures. Most states exempt certain TE projects from the more rigorous environmental impact review. In some cases, state transportation agencies let local governments mange their own TE projects. Streamlining can simplify paperwork and shorten a project timeline. |
|
2. Case Studies
In December 2000, nine state Departments of Transportation were honored at the American Association of Highway and State Transportation Officials (AASHTO) conference in Indianapolis, Indiana for excellence in the implementation of state Transportation Enhancements programs or projects (NTEC 2000a. 2). The TEA challenge competition was sponsored by six interest groups – representatives of the eleven TE activities- and AASHTO. Thirty states accepted the challenge to nominate their state program for TEAward, and eighteen of those states also nominated an individual project for consideration[2]. The four winning programs and five winning projects represent the best of an impressive applicant pool. Kansas, Nebraska, Vermont, and New Jersey won TEAwards for overall program excellence, and five other states won TEAwards for excellence with a specific project (NTEC 2000a 3).
According to the national transportation enhancements clearinghouse newsletter (Valentine 2001 1-5), strong and sustained outreach, well-designed technical assistance, and an open process characterize the four winning states. They employ a variety of financial support techniques to ensure that all communities can participate and encourage broad-based partnerships with public and private organizations. These states also have a high obligation rates for TE funds and numerous completed projects. The five winning projects are characterized by their economic benefit, their impact on the quality of life of their communities, their emphasis on preserving the best of the past, and their sensitivity to the environment
Award
of Excellence winners: Program Category
1. Kansas
Extensive and consistent efforts to get the word out about the Kansas Transportation Enhancements Program were among the reasons the program is a top-rated service in the Kansas Department of Transportation’s annual external customer survey. The program also is a model for project development streamlining to help minimize applicant problems, especially for small communities and non-profits, which the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) encourages to participate. Sustained technical assistance, such as easy-to-read guides, educational workshops, and feedback for unsuccessful applicants also help reduce the “fear factor” sometimes experienced by applicants to the program. KDOT also encourages feedback from project sponsors, which has resulted in revisions to numerous aspects of the program in the past several years.
2. Nebraska
One of the strong points of Nebraska TE program is the processing of projects. An easy two-stage application process minimizes the time commitment of the project sponsors and avoids wasted time for non-eligible projects. A full-time staff and several trained consultants assist potentially eligible applicants in developing proposals. Technical assistance is then provided to all successful applicants throughout the lives of their projects. Over the past nine years, the Nebraska Department of Roads has obligated all available Enhancements dollars for this widely popular program and produced over 400 projects in 11 of the 12 categories. From the department’s perspective, the TE program has improved quality of life in one out of every four Nebraska communities.
3. New Jersey
As one of the states that supported Transportation Enhancements during the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficient Act (ISTEA) debate, the New Jersey Department of Transportation has taken a comprehensive approach to implementation from the beginning. New Jersey’s Enhancement program has served as a useful model to other states in terms of supporting applicants and streamlining the project development process. New Jersey is one of several states which funds projects at 100 percent, but encourages applicants to make contributions, whether in cash or in-kind. According to the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT), the success of the program has inspired the NJDOT to introduce several new sate funded programs that support goals similar to the Federal TE program, including two new programs at the local level for pedestrian and bicycle safety initiatives.
4. Vermont
Similar to Nebraska, Vermont has obligated more than 100 percent of available funds for the Enhancement program. The Vermont Agency of Transportation (VAOT) uses all available methods to streamline project development, and finds that many of the techniques reduce project costs as well as time. Another hallmark of the Vermont program is the significant involvement and support received from the state legislature, allowing legislators to serve on a broad-based selection committee. Such strong legislative interest has resulted in increased funding over the 10 percent set-aside. Since 1997, VAOT has obligated an average of 148 percent of the Enhancement funds.
Award
of Excellence winners: Projects Category
1.
Alaska: Chilkat
Bald Eagle Preserve Wayside and Trail
The Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve Wayside and Trail provides wayside, trails, and interpretive facilities for visitors to this 48,000-acre habitat. The project is notable in the approach taken to address the design challenges posed by the site. Great care was taken to construct facilities that would blend in with the area’s striking natural beauty. Created to protect and perpetuate the world’s largest concentration of bald eagles, the preserve attracts a significant number of visitors each year. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities was increasingly challenged by the environmental impact of cars pulling off the highway onto surrounding vegetation and the safety problems posed by drivers stopping abruptly to view the eagles or walk along the highway. The Department took the initiative to create an environmentally sensitive interpretive viewing site that consists of two pavilions, small parking lots “tucked in” to the habitat, a two-mile walking trail, and a boardwalk facility that incorporates interpretive displays and spotting scopes to view the eagles. Visitors now have a designated site where they can learn about and observe the eagles. The community has gained a new venue for both educational and social functions and is benefiting from increased tourism. Also important is that the environmental impacts of visitors pulling off the highway, compacting surrounding vegetation and damaging the bird habitat has been mitigated.
2.
California: Union
Station Gateway Center
The Union Station Gateway Center, located at historic Union Station in Los Angeles, combines vital regional transit functions with sensitivity to the historic and cultural heritage of the local community. Enhancement funds were used to create an inviting pedestrian environment and provide landscaping and scenic beautification of the gateway pavilion structure, resulting in quality walking and waiting environment for patrons of the station. The pedestrian-friendly Patsaouras Plaza incorporates a new central bus terminal and an outer ring road for vehicles. The Plaza is enhanced with a rich texture of landscaping, and stone and brick architectural elements, which augment the historic flavor of the station. Commissioned works of art further enhance the visual appeal of the Plaza, which can be closed off for cultural events and festivals. The East Portal Pavilion, a grand terminal building on the east side of the station, is also decorated with artwork and provides pedestrians with an aesthetically pleasing environment in which to access various modes of travel. Graced by attractive etched glass skylights, this contemporary half-domed structure is reminiscent in scale and design of the grand train stations. The Gateway Center was a large-scale project that included the provision of an intermodal center, a public park-and-ride garage, and series of roadways and ramps to provide convenient access to the station. The total cost of the project was approximately $ 125 million, which was provided by TE funds.
3.
Georgia: Sapelo
Island Lighthouse
The beacon at the historic Sapelo Island Lighthouse is shining once again thanks in part to TE funding. Dark since 1905, the lighthouse was officially reopened and relit in 1998. It now functions as an important aid to an island that can only be approached by waterway. Extensive reconstruction of the lighthouse included the replacement of windows, the interior staircase, and the cupola, as well as installation of an operable light. TE funds accelerated the preservation of the monumental structure. Over $ 300,000 in funds to improve the surrounding complex were later provided by the General Assembly and private donations to the Sapelo Island Restoration Foundation. This project is exemplary in the success of its partners to leverage the initial TE dollars to attract substantial funding in order to preserve the crumbling structure. The work on the lighthouse marks the beginning of a concerted effort to rehabilitate the historic elements of the island and to aggressively promote tourism.
4.
Kentucky:
Renaissance Kentucky
Created by Governor Paul E. Patton, Renaissance Kentucky is an innovative initiative designed to assist communities with their downtown revitalization efforts. To accomplish its goals, an alliance of state and federal agencies and a private entity was formed. Renaissance Kentucky is designed to enhance and coordinate existing revitalization efforts. Communities are encouraged to utilize planning and expertise created thorough prior, current, or future participation in the Kentucky Heritage Council Main Street Program and the Kentucky Certified Community Partnership Program. In 1998, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet announced its plan to make TE funding available to support the communities designated by the Renaissance Kentucky program. The Cabinet partnered with the Kentucky Heritage Council, the State Historic Preservation Office, and the Kentucky Alliance to develop design guidelines for historic commercial districts to assist communities as they plan public and private improvements to their historic downtowns. These guidelines have shaped the plans for the projects selected for funding. The agencies have also collaborated to offer training sessions on the application process and guidelines.
Over the past two years, $ 10 million in TE funds have been earmarked for streetscape improvements and for community-sensitive streetscape design guidelines in Renaissance Kentucky designated cities. In addition, $4 million in state funds has been allocated for streetscape projects in Renaissance Kentucky cities. The result: streetscape improvements that preserve the unique characteristics of each downtown and enhance the community benefits of preservation in twenty-four Kentucky cities.
5.
West Virginia: Mon
River/Capterton/Deckers Creek Trail System
The Mon Rive/Capterton/Deckers Creek Trail System is a
rail-trail system that spans approximately 50 miles and traverses three
counties. The trail system provides transportation facilities, aesthetic
appeal, and commerce. Response to the trail has been overwhelmingly positive
since its creation. Enthusiastic about the positive benefits of the trail for
their employees, businesses bordering the trail have built stairways and decks
to provide easy access to the area. Residents had already started to traverse
the trail prior to its opening, and some along the rural sections of the trail
have now ‘adopted’ lengths of the trail to plant flowers and perform other
landscaping activities. A new sense of community has sprung up because of these
actions, making the trail the link to a tri-countywide extended neighborhood.
To date, over $2 million in TE funds have been invested in the creation of the
trail. These funds have been further augmented by business and community
donations. Thanks to a broad-based partnership, sustained financial support,
and a clear vision of the final goal, this project has provided numerous
positive benefits to the surrounding communities.
Innovations in State TE Management
While Congress mandated that states fund TE activities as part of their Surface Transportation Program (STP), it left the majority of decision-making about how states should implement TE to the states. States have tremendous flexibility in managing their TE programs, and can allow citizens and localities to take part in shaping those programs.
A number of states have found innovative ways to improve the management and implementation of TE activities distinct from the Congressionally approved streamlining measures. Below three states, which are also awarded by AASHTO, were regarded as examples of innovation in State TE management by National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse (NTEC 2000b).
1.
Nebraska: Effective
use of outside consultant
During a hiring freeze, the NDOR realized it needed more
personnel resources to help the sponsors of TE projects. The TE Division
searched for an alternative workforce and found the answer in consultants. In
Nebraska, a potential TE project sponsor must first submit a one-page
application to the NDOR’s Enhancements Coordinator, who determines if a project
is eligible. If the project is eligible, the sponsor is put in touch with
consultants, who walk the sponsors through every aspect of the application
process and implementation of TE funds: cost, right-of-way, design,
construction, and community support. This assistance is therefore from “concept
through construction.” The consultants advise the sponsors on what to fix, how
to fix it, and what to leave alone. While the consultants offer no guarantee
that a particular project will be selected, they do make sure every project has
a fair chance at acquiring funding. A separate selection committee makes the
final project selection decisions, so there are no conflicts of interest with
the consultants. Training for consultants takes a year and a half, but after
this training they are experts in the TE program. NDOR, which has successfully
approved or built over 330 TE projects, feels that everyone benefits from this
innovative arrangement. 2. New Jersey: Local Governments Manage
Projects in New Jersey
New Jersey DOT believes that communities should have ownership of TE projects from start to finish. The NJDOT thus allows every municipality and county in the state to mange their TE projects, with the DOT’s involvement limited to applications, project selection, and signing off on project plans, construction phase, and final inspection. NJDOT does provide localities with a procedure handbook to assist them with project implementation, and the DOT remains available for consultation throughout the project process. New Jersey does require that localities use a Project Manager, a licensed professional who is generally a consultant engineer or architect. While the DOT does allow localities to manage procurement according to local specifications, the DOT requires some FHWA procurement rules to be applied and that all local specifications be in accordance with Federal procurement rules. By utilizing this flexible management approach, New Jersey has provided over $50 million to county and local governments and non-profit organizations to advance community oriented TE projects.
2.
Vermont: Sponsors
can outsource administration of TE funds
Sine the inception of the TE program, Vermont has required every TE project sponsor to appoint a Municipal Project Manager (MPM) from within his or her organization, or to procure a MPM through a competitive process. However, Vermont is a state with 250 municipalities, most with a population of less than 2,000 and many do not have the technical nor staffing capacity to meet this requirement. So the Administration of Transportation (AOT) allows sponsors to procure a MPM from one of the AOT’s ten Regional Planning Commissions (RPCs) on a sole outsource basis. RPCs perform planning and management functions similar to those of county governments, and therefore are knowledgeable of Federal procurement procedures and project management. Sponsors ask the RPCs for a price quote for project management services, and then can choose to contract with the RPCs for program services. Allowing sponsors to utilize the time, skills, and knowledge of people outside of their own organization benefits both the sponsors and the state as it centralizes management within one entity knowledgeable of procedures, which helps keep projects on track.
Comparison Among States
The following two sections provide a brief comparison between Missouri and the four states, which received TEAwards (Kansas, Nebraska, New Jersey, and Vermont). The comparison provides a valuable snapshot of differences among states. Section 3 focuses on general procedures of program including funding policy. Section 4 compares the types of projects funded in each state (NTEC 2000c).
Missouri:
Projects within metro area are prioritized by MPOs. Projects are rated by an inter-agency selection committee, and recommended by MoDOT staff for funding. The applications are then forwarded to the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission for final approval
· Composition of advisory committee: The Selection Committee includes representatives from each of the following: the MoDOT, six of the state’s MPOs on a rotating basis, the FHWA, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, the Missouri Municipal League and the Missouri Association of Counties
· Permitted applicants: Governmental entities and public agencies may apply.
Kansas:
Three KDOT staffs review committees, organized around project categories, screen and score funding applications. A KDOT executive staff advisory committee makes final project selection decisions. The Secretary of KDOT has final funding approval. The KDOT Program Review Committee is made up of KDOT executive staff including the Assistant Secretary, State Transportation Engineer, Director of Engineering and Design, Director of Operations, and Director of Planning and Development.
· Composition of advisory committee: The state Historical Society leads the staff advisory committee reviewing historic preservation projects. KDOT staffs lead each of the other two committees: scenic/environmental and bicycle/pedestrian
· Funding: KDOT sets aside $250,000 of its TE funds for KDOT projects, but awards the majority of its TE funds to local projects on a competitive basis. Project sponsors must provide a minimum 20% match of the project costs. Donated services and materials are not recognized as part of the match, but acquisitions of ROW can be counted.
· Permitted applicants: State agencies, city and county governments and other political subdivisions can apply; non-profit and civic organizations are encouraged to seek support of a local government or state agency.
Nebraska
All TE applicants must first submit intent to Apply Form that allows the proposed project to be screened for basic feasibility and eligibility. Sponsors with eligible projects then submit an application, which is reviewed and scored by the Transportation Enhancement Selection Committee (TESC). Outside consultants meet with every applicant to work out budgeting and other concerns. The director of NDOR gives the final approval.
· Composition of advisory committee: The TESC is comprised of representatives from the NE Game and Parks Commission, the National Forest Service, the Eastern NE Trails Network, the Dept. of Environmental Quality, the Clean Environment Commission, the SHPO, the Rural Development Comm., the Dept. of Economic Development, the NE Preservation Council, and the NE Council on Health Promotion
· Funding: NDOR sets aside 33% of its TE funds for highway-related, NDOR-sponsored projects, and awards the remaining 66% to projects on a competitive basis. Project sponsors must provide a 20% cash match of the project cost. In-kind contributions do not count toward the match but are considered a favorable sign of community support. The state will match only highway-related enhancement activities that are eligible under the state law.
· Permitted applicants: Local units of government. Natural Resource Districts, state agencies, University of Nebraska, and tribal governments can apply; non-profit and civic organizations are encouraged to work with appropriate govt. entity.
New Jersey
The Transportation Enhancement Advisory Committee evaluates all projects and prepares a list of recommended projects for approval by the Commissioner of Transportation
· Composition of advisory committee: The Transportation Enhancement Advisory Committee includes representatives of various state agencies, advocacy groups and non-profit organizations.
· Funding: NJDOT awards all of its TE funds to projects on a competitive basis. No local match is required because NJ uses toll credits to match all TE funds.
· Permitted applicants: State, county, non-profit organizations and municipal governments can apply; non-profit organizations can also apply but to receive funds the municipality in which the project will be located must endorse them.
Vermont
The staff at VAOT reviews all project applications. The Transportation Enhancement Advisory Committee (TEAC) also reviews all complete applications and submits its recommendations to the Secretary of VAOT for final approval.
· Composition of advisory committee: TEAC has 11 members: 4 citizens; legislative, municipality reps.; ANR, DHP staff; and chaired by VAOT Planning Dir. Inter-Agency Review Team is composed of agency staff for: Natural Resources, Community Affairs, Economic Development, Labor, Historic Preservation, and Transportation.
· Funding: VAOT annually sets aside approximately $500,000 of its TE funds for historic bridge enhancement, and awards the remainder to local and statewide projects on a competitive basis. 75% of all funds designated as enhancements must be awarded by the TEAC. The remaining 25% may be set aside for special projects.
· Project sponsors must provide a 20% match. State funding sources can be used if eligible under the state funding law for that particular program. The Secretary of VAOT may waive part or the entire 20% match requirement after project approval.
· Permitted applicants: Local governments. MPO's, rural districts, and non-profits may apply.
|
Comparison: TE procedures and policy |
|||||
|
|
MO |
KS |
NE |
NJ |
VT |
|
Citizens in Advisory committee |
No |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Selection cycle |
Annual |
Annual |
Annual |
Annual |
Annual |
|
Project award limit |
Half the amount available to that respective district |
None |
$ 500,000 Maximum |
None |
$ 5,000 Minimum |
|
Typical local match |
20% |
20% |
20% |
0% |
20% |
4.Comparison-2: Types
of Projects
The Twelve
Transportation Enhancement Activities Are:
1) Bicycle and pedestrian facilities
2) Bicycle and
pedestrian education and safety
3) Scenic and historic acquisitions
4) Scenic and historic highway programs and welcome centers
5) Landscaping and scenic beautification
6) Historic preservation
7) Preservation of historic transportation facilities
8) Rail corridor preservation and trail development
9) Billboard removal
10) Archaeological planning and research
11) Highway runoff mitigation and wildlife crossings
12) Transportation
museums
Below diagrams show the share of types of project in four states (Raw data from NTEC 2000d). Note that each diagram does not include amount of funds for each type, but number of types that each state provides fund. While 52% of Missouri projects are about bicycle and pedestrian facilities, there is no project about bicycle and pedestrian education and safety, archaeological planning and research, and transportation museums by 1997. Kansas and New Jersey show relatively similar pattern of projects although bicycle and pedestrian facilities related projects are around 30%.
Nebraska shows clearly different pattern. More than two thirds of all projects are landscaping and scenic beautification related projects. Their program covers only 5 different types of projects out of 12. However the landscaping and scenic beautification costs only 14% of total fund, which including local and federal funds, while the bicycle and pedestrian facilities spent 36% of fund.
References:
Ball, Cheryl. 2001. Phone
Interviews with Cheryl Ball of MoDOT. March-April 2001.
Congress Debates ISTEA
Reauthorization, 1997.The Newsletter of the National Transportation
Enhancements Clearinghouse Volume 1 Issue 2.
Fischer, John W “ISTEA
Reauthorization: Highway Related Legislative Proposals in the 105th Congress”. Economics Division. October 23, 1997 <http://www.cnie.org/nle/trans-2.html>
Johnson, Lady Bird and Lees, Carlton B., 1988.
Wildflowers Across America.
National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse.
1997. “A Message from Washington.” The Newsletter of the National
Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse. Volume 1 Issue 1.
National
Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse. 1998a. “Short-TEA Transfer.” The
Newsletter of the National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse. Volume 1
Issue 8.
National
Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse. 1998b. “Senate Passes ISTEA-21.” The
Newsletter of the National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse. Volume 1
Issue 5.
National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse.
1999. “A Guide to Transportation Enhancements.” From http://www.enhancements.org/teguide/teintro.pdf
National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse.
2000a. “Transportation Enhancements: Summary of Nationwide Spending &
Policies as of FY 1999,” FY 1999 Final
Report of NTEC
National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse.
2000b. “Technical Brief: Innovations in State TE Management.” From www.enhancements.org/misc/tbstatemgmt.pdf
National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse.
2000c. “State Transportation Enhancements Program Profile,” from www.enhancements.org/profile.asp
National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse.
2000d. “Transportation Enhancement Project Lists,” from www.apbp.org/ntec/resources.html
New York State Department of Transportation, 2000.
“TEA challenge: AASHTO TEP Awards-NYSDOT application.”
Patten,
Robert.. 2000. “National TE Obligation Rate Still Low.” The NTEC Newsletter.
Volume 3 Number 3.
Questionnaire
to Representatives of MoDOT involved in the Transportation Enhancements
Program. Completed April, 2001.
Remarks
at the Signing of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965, October 22, 1965,
National
Archives and Records Administration.
U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee.
“Legislative Notice: S. 1173 -- Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act of 1997 ”. February 26, 1998.
<
http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1998/42A-ISTEA.htm>
Valentine, Kate 2001 “TEA challenge Salutes State Excellence,” Connections 4:2 – The National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse Newsletter.