1. 1 The Federal Program SAFETEA-LU and Beyond Presented By: Sandy Straehl Transportation Planning Administrator March 2, 2006

2. 2 Discussion Topics –MONEY The Donor / Donee Dynamic Federal Highway Trust Fund Authorization vs. Appropriations Earmarks and Allocations –Programs State Federal Program Changes –

3. 3 Risk and Uncertainty

4. 4 Importance of Highway Program to Montana For Every $1.00 collected in Federal Fuel Taxes in Montana – the state received about $2.25 A $1.00 in state fuel tax leverages about $6.50 in federal highway funds. 47.1 jobs are sustained for every $1 million in highway investments ---- about 16,000 jobs annually SAFETEA-LU – $181.9 billion (’05 – ’09 hwys) Montana’s apportionments $1.775 billion (about 30% increase over TEA-21)

5. 5 Donor / Donee Donors Fewer $$ back than in –Texas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan..about 21 –TEA-21 guaranteed 90.5% of % contribution –SAFETEA-LU Guaranteed 91% of % Donee More $$ back than in 2 classes –Protected % share Montana, WY, ID, NV, ND, SD, NM –Protected Ranges New York, New Jersey,

6. 6 In Millions Millions Generated For Each Cent of State Fuel Tax Fuel Tax Rate Need for Montana to Match Revenue Generated in these States Fuel Tax per Gallon Source: 2003 Highway Statistics Table MF-12IT; Gasoline Tax Rates

7. 7 Rural Highway Travel as a Percentage of Total Travel Source: 2003 Highway Statistics Table PS-1 Montana’s Transportation System serves as a crucial bridge across the nation.

8. 8 The distance across Montana is greater than the distance between Washington D.C. and Chicago. VA IL Chicago D.C.

9. 9 Source: 2003 Highway Statistics Table PS-1 Montana is huge in land area - and sparse in population Montana a Land Area Population 145,552918,000 (Square Miles) Northeastern States Land Area Population CT MA ME NH NY RI VT Total 4,845 7,840 30,862 8,968 47,214 1,045 9,250 3,460,000 6,433,000 1,299,000 1,139,000 19,158,000 1,048,000 619,000 110,02433,156,000 (Square Miles) Montana

10. 10 Per Capita Contributions to State and Federal Highway Trust Funds US Average $252.09 * Includes contributions for Highways, Mass Transit and State Tax Receipts. 2003 Hwy Stat tables FE-9 & MF-1 *

11. 11 Discuss How the Federal Formula Works

12. 12 IM formula attributes $$ + NH Formula attributes + Subsequent Formula programs accumulate to state total = Sum of programs is compared to Equity Bonus Guarantee and funds are added Three types of Equity Bonus Guarantees: Donor % guarantee return on % contributed to trust fund Eastern Donee % min/max growth Western Donee Locked % guarantee (Montana!) + Below the Line Earmark Project funds Formula Funding Program

13. 13 Comparison of Quality of Guarantees Annually 1% of the Highway Program = about $345 - $360 m State Program Share Rate of Return (on trust fund contribution) Donor Ex: Indiana.02341 to.02491 90.5% to 92% Eastern Donee Ex: New York.048256 to.044688 114.04% to 109.61% Western Donee Ex: Montana.009758219.23% to 227.10%

14. 14 % Program Lock Essential for Montana’s Program 18 states are protected under SAFETEA-LU % share of program will not degrade State share protected for: –Low population density (40 persons/sq mile) –High Federal Land Ownership (25% or greater land area) –Low population ( < 1,000,000) –Low median household income (< $35,000) –High Interstate Fatality Rate

15. 15 Obligation Limitation Impact on MDT’s Core Program Apportionment FY 2006 Apportioned Funds = $339,067,668 Less 30% High Priority Projects = $9,876,000 Core Project Program Apportionments= $329,191,668 (IM, NHS, STP, BR, CMAQ, Safety, Rec Trails, Borders Safe Routes 2 School) Obligation Limitation – 85% of Apportioned FY 2006 Ob Limit (.85* $339.0 million) = $288,207,517 Less 30% High Priority Projects (assume 100% funded) = $9,876,000 Core Program Obligation Authority= $278,331,517 (Sec 1702 Earmarks) For Comparison FY 2003 Obligation Authority for Core Programs was $277 million * Notes: * Approximately 70% of the projects named for Montana in Section 1702 were from MDT’s Core Program categories. *

16. 16 Millions SAFETEA-LU SAFETEA-LU Funding Estimates Little Actual Program Growth in Spendable Dollars Notes: Obligation limitation is 85% of Apportionment. Years beyond FY 2009 estimates based on Highway Trust Fund balance projections FY 2003 SAFETEA-LU Spendable Dollars

17. 17 Discuss Earmarks Below the Line & Above the Line

18. 18 Discuss Overlay of Federal and State Program

19. 19 Distribution Guided by State Law Surface Transportation Program (STP) Surface Transportation Program (STP) Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) National Highway System (NHS) National Highway System (NHS) Interstate Maintenance (IM) Interstate Maintenance (IM) Bridge (HBRRP) Bridge (HBRRP) Federal Funding Category State Funding Category Distribution Guided by Policy or Agreement Funding Flow for Federal Transportation Funds Rural & Elderly & Disabled Transit Capital (Sections 5311/5310) Rural & Elderly & Disabled Transit Capital (Sections 5311/5310) Urban Transit (Section 5307) Transfers allowed between categories in accordance with Federal laws Montana Transportation Commission Secondary Highway Program Urban Highway Program Districts 15 Urban Areas (Pop. >5,000) Primary Highway Program Enhancement (10% of STP) Hazard Elimination (10% of STP) CTEP (Distributed by formula) Statewide Distribution Financial Districts Missoula Montana Air & Congestion Initiative (MACI) -Guaranteed -Discretionary Authorization Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) Apportionment & Annual Appropriation Act (Obligation Limitation) Montana Department of Transportation January 2006 Statewide Distribution Statewide Distribution Distribution Guided by Federal Law Urbanized Areas (>50,000) -Great Falls -Billings Safe Routes to School SAFETEA-LU Section 1404 Statewide Distribution Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program SAFETEA- LU Section 1303 Within 200 Miles of Border-High Volume NH Routes Urbanized Planning Support (PL) Directed Funds High Priority Trans. Improvements Approp. Earmarks Directed Funds High Priority Trans. Improvements Approp. Earmarks Statewide Urbanized Areas (>50,000) Urban High Growth Adjustment >15% Population Increase Urban High Growth Adjustment 15 Urban Areas (Pop. >5,000) Urban Highway Preservation Federal Lands Highway Program (FLHP) Public Lands Highways Parkways & Park Roads Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) Refuge Roads Federal Lands Highway Program (FLHP) Public Lands Highways Parkways & Park Roads Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) Refuge Roads

20. 20 Discuss Commission Funding Plan for SAFETEA-LU

21. 21 Decision- Making Balance and Program Authority SAFETEA-LU requires new consultation – but did not change the balance of authority in the federal program New planning level consultation will now include: economic development, resource agencies, planned growth

22. 22 MPO – State Decision Making Consultation – confer and consider other party’s views before taking action Cooperation – involved parties carry out the processes and work together jointly to achieve a common goal Coordination – consistency

23. 23 Decision Making Geo. Area Process Urbanized Area >50k & <200k Outside Urbanized Area Plans MPO responsible in Cooperation w/MDT MDT responsible in Consultation with Local officials Programs (Trans. Imp. Prog) MPO responsible in Cooperation w/MDT MDT responsible in Consultation with Local Officials Proj. Selection: IM / NH / Br MTC selects in Cooperation w/ MPO MTC selects in Consultation with Local officials Proj. Selection: Urban/Primary MTC selects in Cooperation w/ MPO MTC selects in Cooperation with Local Officials

24. 24 SAFETEA-LU Emphasis Areas Important for Montana TRANSIT SAFETY Environmental changes

25. 25 MDT Transit Programs A NEW DAY FOR TRANSIT IN MONTANA

26. 26 Impact on Montana Locally developed coordination plan Large increase in funding Match Relief

27. 27 Major Transit Funding Programs (With Billings FY ’06 Funding) Federal Section 5307-Urbanized transit systems (50/50 operating-80/20 capital) $1,178,567 Section 5303-Urbanized transit planning 133,988 JARC-Job Access Reverse Commute 79,756 New Freedom 91,621 Section 5310-Elderly and disabled (87/13 capital)$ 81,858 Section 5311-Rural general public (54/46 operating-87/13 capital) 0 Section 5309-Buses & bus facilities (80/20 capital) (prior year projects) 3,105,131 State TransADE-Transportation Assistance for Disabled & Elderly $ 40,059 *New with SAFETEA-LU

28. 28 Major SAFETEA-LU Transit Changes New Coordination Requirements Beginning FFY 2007 all Section 5310, JARC, & New Freedom projects must be consistent with locally developed coordination plans. Funding Increases for Montana (FFY ‘05-FFY ’06)

29. 29 Non- Federal Match Ratio Changes Capital Assistance 80% Federal & 20% Local Capital Assistance 86% Federal & 14% Local Operating Assistance 50% Federal & 50% Local Operating Assistance 54% Federal & 46% Local Administration Assistance 80% Federal & 20% Local Maintenance Assistance 80% Federal & 20% Local Note: Federal Human Service and Indian Reservation Road Funds can be used to Match FTA Funds. Pre- SAFETEA-LU

30. 30 Factors that Combine to Form a New Vision Local coordination plans required –This means one provider for public and human service transportation Human Service Transport Costs can match FTA money (Medicaid, DD services, job training, etc.) Significant Increase in most flexible category

31. 31 Example Scenario: OLD WORLD OPERATING Anytown, Montana Transportation Providers Senior Citizens Center Develop- mentally Disabled Center Nursing Home Public Transit System Other Human Service Agencies $$$$

32. 32 Example Scenario: Senior Citizen Center Developmentally Disabled Center Consolidated Provider Other Human Service Agencies Nursing Home $$$$ NEW WORLD OPERATING Anytown, Montana Transportation Providers

33. 33 With the increase in FTA funding, MDT will implement the following changes: Application process simplified One application for Capital One application for Operating Locally Developed Coordination Plan Deadlines Eliminated Transit Application Process Changes

34. 34 SAFETY Provisions Safety program –Program growth about 40% –No longer a set-aside – program will ramp up Requirement to do a Strategic Highway Safety Plan –Eligibilities expand based on plan –Possible transfer to behavioral programs (Sec. 402) New Data reporting including top safety locations

35. 35 MDT’s Approach – Statewide Comprehensive Safety Plan Began in Aug. 2004 in anticipation of Act MDT offices: Director’s Office, MCS, Engineering, SHTSO, Planning Non-MDT: OPI, Highway Patrol, DPHHS, members of the Court, FHWA, Motor Carriers, Safe Kids/Safe Communities, Emergency Responders, Tribal Governments, MPOs, local law

36. 36 Objectives of a Comprehensive Safety Plan for Montana Establish specific safety-related goals and objectives relevant to all modes of transportation Address issues at all levels of jurisdiction Identify candidate safety strategies and evaluate Establish a process for prioritizing strategies Establish a mechanism for interagency coordination and partnerships Carry out a program of public outreach and education Develop a strategic implementation plan with specific action items

37. 37 To Date Identified a long-term goal Identified and set up work teams for 13 safety objectives Have performed 3 corridor safety audits Have hosted a Tribal Safety Forum Have Completed a Strategic Traffic Records Assessment

38. 38 262 Fatalities 4446 Injuries $780 Million Cost to the State Why all this is needed - Montana Statistics for 2003

39. 39 Fatality Rate (per 100M VMT) U.S.: 1.5 MT: 2.6 Best:.81 Alcohol Related U.S.: 41% MT: 47% Best: 22% Safety Belts U.S.: 41.3% MT: 28% Best: 59.3% Comparison Statistics

40. 40 Impaired Driving Alcohol Related Fatalities per 100 Million VMT, Montana, 1982-2002 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 ‘82‘83‘84‘85‘86‘87‘88‘89‘90‘91‘92‘93‘94‘95‘96‘97‘98‘99‘00‘01‘02 MT Alcohol RelatedU.S. Alcohol Related MT TotalU.S. Total Rate Year

41. 41 Alcohol by County

42. 42 Perspective on Fatal Crash Characteristics Distracted driving (25%) Impaired driving (41%) Roadway departures (38%) Speeding (31%) Failure to wear safety belts (59% unrestrained) Intersections (21%) Pedestrians (11%) Pedalcyclists (2%) Trucks (11%) Motorcycles (8%) Total = 247%

43. 43 Comp Safety Plan Goals Reduce the statewide fatality rate from 2.05 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled in 2004 to 1.79 by 2008 Further reduce the statewide fatality rate to 1.0 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled by 2015 By reducing the fatality rate, Montana's incapacitating injuries will also fall from 1,700 in 2005 to 950 in 2015.

44. 44 Plan Status Working Groups set up for Each of the 13 Objective areas Commitments have been identified and new countermeasures defined Plan will go back before multi-agency group in April Gov. will meet again with Tribes in April

45. 45 Safe Routes To School New SAFETEA-LU Program!

46. 46 SAFE Routes To School Montana will receive $1 million annually to support Safe walking and biking to elementary and middle schools A full time Coordinator required There are 816 school buildings in Montana and 405 School Districts 70% for infrastructure 30% for Behavioral

47. 47 Montana Approach – estimated launch July, 2006 Infrastructure managed through CTEP program SR2S will be used as an incentive for local governments to select bike/ped CTEPprojects close to school Example: 100% federal funds can expand a local government’s CTEP allocation and encourage bike/ped close to schools versus another project Montana’s Annual Allocation will not increase during SAFETEA-LU -- MT is a minimum apportionment state - $1 million per year. SAFE Routes To School

48. 48 Montana Approach (con’t) Behavioral programs will coordinate with State Highway Traffic Safety Office SR2S Coordinator is being solicited through an RFP -- selection criteria focused experience with communities and schools SAFE Routes To School

49. 49 Environment – Relative to Planning New requirements for visualization Mitigation: long-range transportation plans must include potential environmental mitigation activities and potential locations to carry them out –Developed in consultation with Fed/State/Tribal wildlife, land management, and regulatory agencies

50. 50 Corridor Studies – Planning Products for Future NEPA Able to graduate an alternative set and purpose and need statement into NEPA from Planning….if Thorough record of public involvement and sound technical analysis

51. 51 Corridor Studies Underway US 93 – Florence to Missoula MT 78 – North of Red Lodge TRED – US 2 TRE in MT I 94 Rest Area S 567 – North of Libby

52. 52 Environmental – relative to Project Development New mandatory environmental review process for EIS –New category of participating agencies –Public and agency involvement in purpose & need –Requires coordination plans with deadlines –Process for resolving differences Intent: make process more predictable – but the jury will be out for a while

53. 53 Some New Protections Flexibilities 180 day statute of limitations for lawsuits challenging federal agency approvals 4(f) and de minimis impact –If a de minimis impact to a 4(f) property then alternative analysis not required –All possible planning to minimize harm is required –Local officials with jurisdiction concur

54. 54 Implementation Teams Environmental……...............Jean Riley Financial Issues…….............Monte Brown Stewardship……...................Jim Walther Planning…….........................Sandy Straehl Safety…….............................Duane Williams FHWA co-chair on all teams

55. 55 Questions?