Is a Federal Earmark for Route 250 Bypass Interchange a Mandate for Action?

This posting may appeal to the transportation planners who read this blog - others be forewarned. I do find using earmarked funding as a congressional mandate for action to be totally inappropriate - and this is what is being done on our Route 250 Interchange at McIntire Road project. Well, here goes.....

Congressional earmarks have been a topic of much discussion of late and is an issue in the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road project locally. Funds for the interchange were authorized in the SAFETEA-LU legislation (Public Law 109-59) in two separate sections. Section 1702 provided $25 million and section 1934 provided an additional $2 million. The question is if inclusion of funding for a project in either of these sections constitutes a mandate for construction of the interchange. At the first meeting of the Section 106 Consulting Parties Coordination Meeting on November 26, 2007 I stated that I do not feel the Purpose and Need was appropriate, and that several elements, including the SAFETEA-LU earmark, community mobility, and developing a context sensitive gateway should not be part of the purpose and need for the project. I received a response to this comment in a memorandum from Angela Tucker, the Charlottesville project manager (prepared by Eric Almquist the project planner for the consultant) as follows:

"The purpose and need was developed by the project team with considerable input from the Steering Committee (including local planning officials), the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, the public (including two workshops), VDOT, and FHWA. It follows closely guidance that is presented at the FHWA website:

http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/tdmelements.asp

The Congressional earmark is a representation of Congressional intent and a federal agency needs to consider the views of Congress in arriving at a decision. As such, it is a relevant and an important component of the purpose and need for the project. Further, Federal legislation is a valid item for the purpose and need of a project discussed at the website above."

The FHWA website does include a brief statement relating to legislation but it is quite different from any establishment of a basis for construction the project. The FHWA states in one item under the heading:

"The following items may be listed and described in the purpose and need statement for a proposed action. These are by no means all-inclusive or applicable in every situation. They are intended as a guide.

• Legislation — Explain if there is a Federal, state, or local governmental mandate for the action."

This guidance basically says that if a legislative mandate exists, then it is appropriate to include that mandate be "listed and described" in the purpose and need statement But does appropriation of funds through SAFETEA-LU constitute a mandate for the project to be constructed? I find no evidence of this constituting a mandate. In fact, the relevant section of the United States Code under which this decision should be reviewed is identified in the section in which the $25 million was allocated as 23 USC 117. I have included the relevant part of section 1702 of Public Law 109-59 below (I included all of the text and the $25 million item description but removed all of the other projects included in the table listing of projects with funds authorized). These funds are in effect earmarked for possible use as described in 23 USC 117 through fiscal year 2009.

I have included section 1934 of Public Law 109-59 (eliminating all other projects in the table listing) where the allocation of the additional $2 million is included. Clearly there is no mandate for action included in this section, and in fact indicates that these funds are to be processed in the same manner as funds allocated for Federal Highway programs provided for in this legislation except that these funds will not expire at the end of fiscal year 2009.

If you wish to explore the relevant sections of Title 23 of the United States Code and the SAFETEA-LU legislation, you can link to them at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/legis.htm

Unsatisfied with the response to this issue from the interchange project team I posted an inquiry about using earmarks as being a congressional mandate to a Federal Highway Administration discussion website on Purpose and Need issues. I am hoping I will get some discussion among other transportation development professionals on this topic.


SAFE, ACCOUNTABLE, FLEXIBLE, EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT: A LEGACY FOR USERS

Public Law 109-59
Aug. 10, 2005

SEC. 1702. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

Subject to section 117 of title 23, United States Code, the amount listed for each high priority project in the following table shall be available (from amounts made available by section 1101(a)(16) of this Act) for fiscal years 2005 through 2009 to carry out each such project:

Highway Projects
High Priority Projects

No. 5044
Construct Meadowcreek Parkway Interchange, Charlottesville VA
$25,000,000


SEC. 1934. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS.

(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--For each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009, there are authorized to be appropriated from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) such sums as are necessary to make allocations in accordance with paragraph (2) to carry out each project described in the table contained in subsection (c), at the amount specified for each such project in
that table.
(2) Allocation percentages.--Of the total amount specified for each project described in the table contained in subsection (c), 10 percent for fiscal year 2005, 20 percent for fiscal year 2006, 25 percent for fiscal year 2007, 25 percent for fiscal year 2008, and 20 percent for fiscal year 2009 shall be allocated to carry out each such project in that table.

(b) Contract Authority.--
(1) In general.--Funds authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection shall be available for obligation in the same manner as if the funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, except that the funds shall remain available until expended.
(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of a project under this section shall be determined in accordance with section 120 of such title.

(c) Table.--The table referred to in subsections (a) and (b) is as follows:

Transportation Improvements

No. 408
Construct Meadowcreek Parkway Interchange, Charlottesville VA
$2,000,000

Charlottesville Planning Commission Candidate InterviewsToday

Charlottesville's City Council will be interviewing several candidates to fill at least one vacant position on the Charlottesville Planning Commission today (March 3, 2008) in the Basement Conference Room at City Hall starting at 5:00 pm. I understand that the interviews are open to the public (but I couldn't find any announcement about that on the city website). If you have an interest in local planning issues, an interest in becoming a planning commissioner sometime in the future, or simply interested in seeing and hearing the interviews in person - do attend. I plan to stop in for some of the interviews myself. The City Council meeting starts at 7:00 pm so the interviews can not go more than about an hour and a half. Last time interviews took place the successful candidate was announced after a brief closed session after the interviews were complete. Perhaps that will happen again this time.

NOTE: photo is from a Charlottesville Tomorrow story on their website and shows the current planning commission at a recent worksession concerning the second mall crossing issue.

Protecting our Historic Resources

The third meeting of the Section 106 Consulting Parties meeting is to happen at the Albemarle County Office Building -- Room 235 -- on February 26. And THE PUBLIC CAN ATTEND. You won't likely have any opportunity to participate in the meeting, but if you are concerned about the impacts of major highway projects on our historic and cultural resources, I urge you to attend, learn, and share your idea by writing to our federal, state, and local project planners or share your ideas and concerns on blogs (like here), in letters to the editor, before city council and elsewhere.

Section 106 refers to the section of the National Historic Preservation Act that relates to preservation of historic and cultural resources. If you are interested in this subject, do check out the implementing regulations at 36 CFR Part 800 in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulation.

Angela Tucker at the Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Services is the coordinator for these meetings. If you wish to get some of the background material or other information about this Section 106 process I recommend you contact her. Some background materials are currently available on the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road project website.

Below is the draft agenda that has been distributed to members of the committee. Meetings have been about 2 hours or so.

SECTION 106 CONSULTING PARTIES COORDINATION MEETING No. 3
February 26th, 2008 @ 1:00 PM

Location:

Albemarle County Office Building- McIntire, Room 235
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA

DRAFT AGENDA

1. Review of Last Meeting
• Minutes and Comments
• APE
• Eligibility
• Letter to VDHR February 8, 2008

2. Avoidance and Minimization Alternatives
• Review of Alternatives discussed at last meeting
• Section 4(f) Alternatives
• One Way Pair
• Split Interchange
• Transportation System Management (TSM)
• Section 4(f) Avoidance Alternatives (as presented in the Environmental Assessment)
• Discussion

3. Effects Discussion
• Historic Characteristics
• Criteria of Adverse Effect

4. Next Steps- Path Forward

Materials Distributed:
1. Minutes from January 10, 2008 Meeting
2. Project Team’s Response to Comments
3. Alternatives Mapping
- Brief description, figure, and preliminary feasibility analysis of each alternative
4. Historic Significance Findings
5. Letter from City of Charlottesville to VDHR, February 6, 2008
6. Letter from FHWA to VDHR, February 15, 2008

NOTE: Distributed to consulting parties by email on February 19, 2008.

Charlottesville Budget Busting

There is a line item in the Charlottesville Budget that shows $40,000 for the Meadow Creek Parkway as a 2-percent match for state or federal funds. It is confusing in that the Meadow Creek Parkway is a project in Albemarle County. McIntire Road Extended or the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road are related road projects in the city that it likely should refer to. In itself, this isn't a budget buster, but at the February 19, 2008 City Council Meeting, council approved spending up to $1 million to match dollar for dollar available VDOT funds for road project use. Some of this money is likely to provide more funding above the already $29 million being spent on the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road project. The just approved matching money is thus a 100-percent match. So, an additional $2 million dollars for the interchange could cost the city $1 million. This is significantly more than the line item in the budget that provides (using the 2-percent match) just over $2 million for a cost to the city of $40,000.

How much are we in the city willing to spend to keep the Meadow Creek Parkway or McIntire Road Extended or the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road alive? Who is likely to benefit from these very expensive projects that seem to offer little improvement in our transportation network but will add significantly to traffic congestion in already congested parts of the city, add significantly to pollution of our air and water resources, and spend scarce city dollars that could be (in my opinion at least) in meeting pressing needs in our community relating to transit, affordable housing, education, safety, social services, etc.

As the estimated costs of these large road projects continue to grow, I wonder how many more of our budget dollars will be put into pavement that will provide value much less than if these dollars were programmed elsewhere in our budget. Sometimes you get what you pay for, sometimes not.

MPO podcast now available

If you missed the comment to the previous post, the audio of the Feb. 20, 2008 MPO meeting is now available online. Hear the conversation and read a summary of the discussions at the Charlottesville Tomorrow weblog.

Metropolitan Planning Organization contemplates giving project prioritization back to VDOT

I attended the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) policy board meeting on Wednesday Feb. 20, 2008 to hear the discussion under the agenda heading "STIP/TIP/SYP Unifying the System Investment Process (USIP) Update." Here the STIP is the State Transportation Improvement Program; TIP is the local MPO's Transportation Improvement Program; and SYP is the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Six Year Plan. These are all funding documents that determine which transportation projects have funding and can move forward within the next few years. [See agenda summary material here].



I was disappointed to see that VDOT is proposing to develop their STIP prior to providing sufficient funding and other information to the local MPOs thereby making decisions about which local transportation projects will be moved forward before the priorities of the local MPOs (locally that is the Charlottesville and the urbanized portion of Albemarle County transportation projects). The VDOT proposal is part of an effort to streamline the process of utilizing Federal-aid Highway funds through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Unfortunately, this also essentially removes the public from setting local transportation project priorities. It also puts the MPO policy board in a position of objecting to VDOT's priorities rather than being the body that sets local priorities and requests that VDOT fund projects accordingly.

I see this VDOT proposal as a return to centralized transportation planning in Richmond with local MPO's having little if any influence in setting and ultimately meeting our local transportation priorities. I will urge our local MPO voting members (Dennis Rooker and David Slutzky from Albemarle Board of Supervisors; Julian Taliaferro and Satyendra Huja from Charlottesville City Council) not to approve the proposed process until it is clear that our MPO and the public they represent have significant input into setting local transportation priorities. The current fiscal year MPO budget is about $435,000 for its planning and research efforts in identifying and promoting solutions to our transportation needs. If the MPO and public have little say in what will be done, what is the purpose of investing this much money in planning at the MPO?

Charlottesville Tomorrow recorded the meeting. If you are as concerned about this loss of local decision making authority to the Commonwealth that is being promoted as I am, I hope you will listen to the podcast when it is posted on the Charlottesville Tomorrow website and let your city and/or county representatives know your thoughts on this matter. If we don't speak up now for local prioritization of our federal and state transportation investments, we may not have any meaningful say about priorities or project funding decisions in the future.

Yes, we need to bring transit (BRT or Light Rail) to our community

Seth Rosen asks in the Feb. 18, 2008 Daily Progress article the "$138 million question: Is high-tech bus system worth the price tag?" Rosen reports that many of our local elected officials "are skeptical that a bus rapid transit system would accomplish what its advocates predict. And the $138 million price tag would be a staggering sum for a community of this size". Benefits anticipated from the transit option expect reduced travel time between downtown, the university, U.S. Route 29, and to the airport. This would also be consistent with city council's goals of reducing the use of single-occupancy automobiles, reducing emission of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, and enhancing transportation options for residents of and visitors to our region. But, is $138 million too much to invest in our transportation future? Charlottesville and Albemarle County continue to pursue the idea of building the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway. The current cost estimate for the city portion (McIntire Road Extended through McIntire Park), the county portion (Meadow Creek Parkway from Melbourne Road to Rio Road), and the Route 250 Bypass Interchange at McIntire Road totals $69 million dollars. This is the sum of cost estimates our local Metropolitan Planning Organizations long range plan document being considered at tomorrow's MPO meeting. The $69 million - half of the cost of the high-tech bus system - buys us little if anything in the way of congestion relief, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, or enhanced transportation options. In fact, the parkway project appears to be counter to meeting council's stated goals. In addition, the parkway would have significant impacts on McIntire Park, Bailey Park, and several historic sites eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The actual cost for the parkway option will likely be higher than the $69 million given that emerging cost estimates for the interchange alone are typically above the current listed cost.

I prefer our region consider seriously investing in transit (considering both BRT and light-rail options) and reprogramming the funds allocated to the Meadow Creek Parkway project to support transit development to the extent possible. I believe a regional investment of $138 million for transit will be a much better investment than the $69+ million dollars currently programmed for a project with little to offer in solving our long-term regional transportation problems.

Note: Image from http://www.transalt.org/files/newsroom/magazine/042Spring/images/17bus.jpg