STATEMENT OF
CYNTHIA BURBANK, PROGRAM MANAGER
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT CORE BUSINESS UNIT
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ON TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND SMART GROWTH
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
MAY 15, 2002
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to
provide testimony on the important subject of transportation planning. Today, I
would like to report to you on the status of transportation planning, and what
FHWA is doing to assist States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) in
fulfilling the planning goals of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (TEA-21).
OVERVIEW: THE ESSENTIAL ROLE OF PLANNING
Transportation planning is the process of identifying transportation problems
and looking for solutions that fulfill multiple national, State, and local
goals. Statewide and metropolitan transportation planning processes, governed by
Federal law (23 United States Code (USC) sections 134 and 135; 49 USC sections
5303-5305) and applicable State and local laws, are required if Federal highway
or transit funds are to be used for transportation investments in the State or
metropolitan area.
The planning process must do more than merely list highway and transit
capital investments. It must provide strategies for operating, managing,
maintaining, and financing an area's transportation system in such a way as to
best advance that area's long-term goals. The Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) rely on the transportation
planning process as the primary mechanism for cooperative decision making at the
State and local level. This means that local officials and others who anticipate
using Federal transportation funds must be involved in planning. Transportation
planning must be attentive to the public's needs and include sufficient
opportunities for public input.
The planning process produces the information on which elected officials and
policy makers will base their decisions regarding transportation improvements,
and helps ensure better, more informed decision making. Transportation planners
undertake comprehensive analyses and evaluation of the potential impact of
transportation plans and programs and, at the same time, address the aspirations
and concerns of the community that these plans and programs serve. Planners
examine past, present, and prospective trends, and issues associated with the
demand for the movement of people and goods at local, rural, metropolitan,
statewide, national, and international levels. Public officials equipped with
this information can make decisions that address key community objectives and
tradeoffs, while reducing unanticipated consequences.
Transportation planning must reflect the desires of communities and take into
account the impacts on both the natural and human environments. Transportation
plans should help regions and communities set and achieve their goals. A
comprehensive planning process that considers land use, development, safety, and
security, also helps ensure that transportation decisions will be made in an
environmentally sensitive way. The States, MPOs, and transit operators choose
which projects will advance. The Federal role is to provide funds, standards,
technical assistance, and planning models so that State and local decision
makers are able to make the best transportation choices for their area within
the funding available.
PLANNING UNDER ISTEA AND TEA-21
ISTEA made significant changes in the metropolitan and statewide planning
requirements for highways and transit, requiring greater attention to public
involvement, fiscal prudence, and multimodal transportation systems planning. In
addition, ISTEA provided State and local governments more flexibility in
determining transportation solutions, whether transit or highways. ISTEA
instituted statewide planning and continued the metropolitan planning processes
as the framework for making these decisions. As a result, much of the past 10
years has been devoted to adjusting to these changes and applying the new
requirements. In most cases, the MPOs, State Departments of Transportation
(DOTs), and transit operators have worked together in a cooperative way to
implement the changes. The ISTEA reforms have resulted in more attention to
developing financially sound transportation plans and programs and to involving
the public and stakeholder interest groups in developing the plans and programs.
The changes have enhanced and improved the integrity and effectiveness of the
transportation decision-making process, but continued progress is needed.
To assist the MPOs, State DOTs, and transit operators in implementing the
ISTEA changes, FHWA and FTA have focused on conducting training courses,
providing technical assistance, supporting peer exchanges, identifying best
practices, and preparing case studies.
The changes initiated by ISTEA were carried forward by TEA-21 with some
further refinements. The financial discipline in the development of plans and
programs introduced in ISTEA was continued, with an added requirement that
financial estimates be developed cooperatively between the State and MPO.
By statute, metropolitan transportation plans must address a minimum of a
twenty-year planning horizon and be updated on a schedule identified by the
Secretary (currently three years in non-attainment areas and five years in
attainment areas). By statute, Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs)
address a three-year horizon and must be updated at least every two years at the
State and metropolitan level. State plans are updated on a cycle identified by
the State. In non-attainment areas, under the Clean Air Act, FHWA and FTA
have sought, in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to
develop approaches to more effectively integrate air quality and transportation
planning timeframes and processes. This is a continuing challenge, which will
arise in reauthorization.
Section 1308 of TEA-21 directed the Secretary to eliminate the separate
requirement for a Major Investment Study (MIS) and integrate the remainder of
the process into the environment and planning processes. Although regulatory
changes have not been completed, FHWA and FTA have fostered and supported
experimentation with alternative approaches, as mutually developed at the State
and local level.
While ISTEA and TEA-21 strengthened the role of MPOs and local governments in
transportation planning and programming, States continue to have the primary
role, responsibility, and authority-albeit in a framework of consultation and
cooperation with MPOs, local governments, and transit operators.
Since the passage of ISTEA and TEA-21, States have become more involved in
comprehensive transportation planning, including the development of multi-modal
transportation plans. As a result, many States are now engaged in activities,
such as rural freight issues, which previously received little attention.
Because the statewide planning process is continuing to evolve, many States are
looking at ways to restructure their transportation planning and programming
processes. They are determining which decisions should be made at the State
level and which can be decided at the rural or metropolitan level.
INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY BUILDING
FHWA and FTA have jointly developed specialized training courses and new
tools and procedures that address the emerging needs. Also, FHWA and FTA have
sponsored peer exchanges that have allowed States, MPOs, and transit operators
to share best practices.
FHWA and FTA, in a collaborative effort with the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the American Public
Transportation Association (APTA), the Association of Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (AMPO), and the National Association of Regional Councils (NARC),
have launched the Metropolitan Capacity Building (MCB) Program-an initiative to
strengthen MPOs. The program is targeted not only for transportation
professionals, but also the elected officials who make transportation decisions.
Collecting, synthesizing, and disseminating examples of successful innovations
by States, MPOs, and transit operators, the Capacity Building initiative
provides multiple mechanisms for getting critical information to decisionmakers.
Moreover, it helps spread innovation in decisionmaking by publicizing the new
techniques and strategies developed by State and local officials. This
initiative has supported peer exchanges focusing on transportation modeling and
fiscal constraint. A new course on metropolitan planning has been developed to
provide public officials and staff with an overview of planning process
expectations and options. A public officials briefing book has been prepared,
directed specifically to helping elected officials understand their role and
responsibilities, as well as the overall planning process. Additional activities
are in development and will be disseminated over the coming year.
In addition to the involvement of the MPO, State DOT, and transit operators,
TEA-21 made it very clear that new parties should be coming to the planning
table at both the metropolitan and statewide levels. TEA-21 added a requirement
that freight shippers and users of public transit be provided a reasonable
opportunity to comment on transportation plans and programs. Among the most
important parties to come to the planning table are local officials, and TEA-21
emphasized the importance of bringing non-metropolitan officials into the
process. Most states have procedures for engaging local officials throughout
their planning and programming processes. FHWA and FTA are working hard with
States and MPOs to improve or otherwise enhance their efforts to bring
non-metropolitan local officials, freight shippers, and users of public transit
to the table and involve them in planning and programming.
FHWA and FTA have advanced several initiatives, including safety conscious
planning, implementation of the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
Architecture requirements, freight planning, work zone safety, and operational
improvements. These efforts have contributed to congestion mitigation and
enhanced safety consideration.
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND SMART GROWTH
Today, we frequently hear the term "smart growth"-a term that means
different things to different people. FHWA views "smart growth" as a set of
State and local policies and programs designed to protect and preserve valuable
natural and cultural resources and make efficient use of existing
infrastructure, while accommodating economic development and population
growth. @quot;Smart growth@quot; policies link transportation projects with desired
land use patterns in order to make more efficient use of infrastructure and
reduce environmental impact. Land use and transportation have a symbiotic
relationship. How development occurs can greatly influence regional travel
patterns and, in turn, the degree of access provided by the transportation
system can influence land use distribution. Transportation affects land use just
as do affordable housing, good schools, and low crime rates.
State and local governments have the responsibility for establishing growth
policies. Transportation agencies respect those policies and work with the State
and local requirements. Smart growth can mean State and local land use
strategies to increase population and housing densities and make transit more
viable, and it can also mean managing and operating existing highway, transit,
and other transportation modes to maintain or improve performance for each mode
without adversely affecting neighborhoods or urban centers. The goals for smart
growth include knitting transportation improvement projects and public/private
investments so that they merge as seamlessly as possible into the community;
supporting the provision of mixed use development, where feasible, so that
transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and ferry boats are viable options
to driving; and accommodating the flow of freight and passengers throughout the
country so that the economy can continue to grow.
Smart growth does not mean pitting transit or any other mode against
highways. We recognize that it is impractical to completely build our way out of
congestion in our most congested metropolitan areas. But that does not mean that
we think that new roads and improvements to the existing road network should be
eliminated. It is not an issue of highways versus transit. It is an issue of
expanding transportation choices and providing a balanced intermodal
transportation system that allows for the efficient and economical movement of
people and goods. In some areas that may mean more transit and in other areas it
may entail significant roadway improvements, and in most areas it probably means
both. It is up to State and local officials to decide how best to address
their unique set of circumstances, and it is the Department of Transportation's
role to help them best implement their decision.
While FHWA and FTA strongly believe that land use decisions are State
and local decisions, and should remain that way, we do believe that there is
much to be gained from more coordination among State and local planning, zoning,
and housing authorities, and environmental and transportation officials, in
reaching those decisions. We also believe that there should be more dialogue
between local decision makers and transportation professionals on the
connections between land use and surface transportation-including, for example,
more dialogue between airport sponsors and metropolitan planning organizations.
Such dialogues would allow us to learn from each other and produce better
transportation outcomes.
FHWA's role in promoting "smart growth" is to provide technical assistance
and training to our State and local customers concerning the linkages between
transportation and land use. Along with FTA, we will work cooperatively with
other Federal agencies such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) and the EPA, to assist us with transportation-related issues, such as
affordable housing or brownfields, to provide as much assistance as possible in
the form of research, technical expertise, and training to local and State
governments. At the same time, we will be mindful that the people of this
country hold freedom of mobility as a cherished individual right.
In addition to the Metropolitan and Statewide Capacity Building Program
mentioned above, our efforts to help State and local governments make smart
decisions about growth include support for the Transportation Enhancements
Program, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ),
the Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot Program (TCSP),
and research in areas such as value pricing, modeling, and land use.
TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNITY AND SYSTEM PRESERVATION PILOT PROGRAM
(TCSP)
The TCSP program was created by section 1221 of TEA-21, as a competitive
discretionary program to stimulate innovative strategies for using
transportation investments to achieve economic growth, while simultaneously
protecting the environment and ensuring a high quality of life. TCSP projects
funded in fiscal year (FY) 1999 and FY 2000 are demonstrating results that
include: developing new analytical tools to assess the impacts of transportation
and land use alternatives on mobility and economic development; expanding the
range of partners involved in transportation and land use planning; and
demonstrating design practices that increase travel options and improve the
character of local communities. For example, TCSP grants are being used in Mono
County, California; Centreville, Delaware; and Cleveland, Ohio to investigate
design changes that can improve safety and pedestrian access, while still
maintaining traffic flow, where high-traffic roads run through community
centers. A TCSP project in Oregon will survey the impact on travel patterns of
telecommuting centers being developed in rural Oregon by the Oregon Department
of Energy.
TCSP was authorized in TEA-21 at $25 million per year. The response to the
program has been positive--between FY 1999 and FY 2002, we received
approximately 1,332 applications totaling $906 million in response to Federal
Register Notices. With the pending announcement of FY 2002 TCSP awards, there
will be a total of 420 TCSP grant awards.
A significant number of TCSP projects in FY 2001 and 2002 were designated in
Congressional committee reports. While many of these projects might not have
been selected in a competitive process similar to the one used to recommend the
FY 1999 and 2000 TCSP discretionary awards, we can state that all projects that
have received funds are statutorily eligible.
Although FHWA believes that a truly discretionary program, administered
through a competitive merit-based process, would allow us to better maximize the
benefits of the TCSP program, we are working aggressively to ensure that the
funds provided for TCSP projects are used to advance the program's goals as
established in TEA-21.
TCSP outreach efforts by FHWA, including a comprehensive report on the first
three years of implementation based in part on interviews with grantees, have
elicited suggestions for improving TCSP in reauthorization. Suggestions include:
award future TCSP grants through a competitive process; continue to emphasize
learning and knowledge transfer; and maintain a focus on both planning and
implementation.
CONCLUSION
ISTEA and TEA-21 have provided us a solid and balanced structure around which
to shape reauthorization legislation and we will build on the programmatic and
financial initiatives of these two historic surface transportation acts. To this
end, we will apply the core principles enunciated by Secretary Mineta in
testimony before this Committee in January, including:
- Building on the intermodal approaches of ISTEA and TEA-21;
- Preserving funding flexibility to allow the broadest application of funds
to transportation solutions, as identified by State and local governments; and
- Simplifying Federal transportation programs and continuing efforts to
streamline project approval and implementation.
In reauthorization, we want to work with this Committee and with our partners
in the transportation community to find additional means of assisting States to
strengthen and improve their transportation planning processes to better achieve
not only their transportation goals but their other societal goals as well.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look forward
to responding to any questions you may have.
|