Our New Transportation Legislation

Concerns & Opportunities…

Erik HeinPresident of Preservation ActionRegistered Lobbyist

From Bucks County, PALive in Columbia Heights, District of ColumbiaPenn State University (B Hum.)George Washington University (MA AMSTD, HP)

Trustee of the Committee of 100 on the Federal City, Board Member US/ICOMOS

Former Positions and Board Service…Historic Harrisburg Association, the Friends of the Star Barn, City of Harrisburg, the People’s Bridge Coalition, the Broad Street Market Corporation, AIA Pennsylvania, DC Preservation League

Membership/Marketing/Communications national non-profits and for-profit technology companies

Who am I?

Why the connection between

transportation and

preservation?

A personal example…

Franklin Square, Philadelphia. 1895 Map, 1915 Photograph Franklin & Vine, 2012 map & photograph same intersection.

H.R. 4348 (MAP-21)

27 months, $105 billion

Former law, SAFETEA-LU expired September of 2009, and was extended 10 times prior to the President signing the new law on July 6th.

Overview

Transportation Enhancements (funding)

Competition for smaller amount of money

Streamlining

Exemption from NEPA review for advance acquisition

Categorical exclusion from EA’s or EIS’s in emergencies

Categorical exclusion from EA’s or EIS’s in existing “right-of-way”

Categorical exemption from EA’s or EIS’s less than $5 million

Categorical exemption from EA’s or EIS’s 15% or less federal funds (unless project over $30 million)

General calls to find other ways, processes to expedite project delivery

Concerns

SAFETEA-LU10% mandatory set-

aside for 12 eligible activities (several preservation related). In 2010 about $886 million apportioned. $927 million in 2011.

Transportation Enhancements

MAP-21Approx $808 million for

Transportation Alternatives (redefined TE), preservation still eligible…BUT…

Transportation Alternatives

• As redefined, acquisition of historic easements or sites, transportation museums and scenic/historic byways are gone.

• Transportation Alternatives also compete with Safe Routes to Schools and Recreational Trails Program.

Transportation Alternatives

• TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES

‘‘(A) Construction, planning, and design of on-road and off-road trail facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other nonmotorized forms of transportation, including sidewalks, bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian and bicycle signals, traffic calming techniques, lighting and other safety-related infrastructure, and transportation projects to achieve compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).‘‘(B) Construction, planning, and design of infrastructure-related projects and systems that will provide safe routes for non-drivers, including children, older adults, and individuals with disabilities to access daily needs.‘‘(C) Conversion and use of abandoned railroad corridors for trails for pedestrians, bicyclists, or other non-motorized transportation users.‘‘(D) Construction of turnouts, overlooks, and viewing areas.‘‘(E) Community improvement activities, including—

‘‘(i) inventory, control, or removal of outdoor advertising; ‘‘(ii) historic preservation and rehabilitation of historic transportation

facilities; ‘‘(iii) vegetation management practices in transportation rights-of-way to

improve roadway safety, prevent against invasive species, and provide erosion control; and‘‘(iv) archaeological activities relating to impacts from implementation of a transportation project eligible under this title.

‘‘(F) Any environmental mitigation activity, including pollution prevention and pollution abatement activities and mitigation to—

‘‘(i) address stormwater management, control, and water pollution prevention or abatement related to highway construction or due to highway runoff, including

activities described in sections 133(b)(11), 328(a), and 329; or‘‘(ii) reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality or to restore and maintain connectivity among terrestrial or aquatic habitats.’’

Source: Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse

• Minimum of 50% of funding goes to local entities for competitive grants

• States have greater flexibility on how to use the rest – can opt out and use for highways.

Transportation Alternatives

Source: Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse

Transportation Enhancements

Pennsylvania Preservation TE Funding 1992 to 2011:

3) Scenic/historic acquisitions $4,468,000

4) Scenic/historic highway programs & welcome centers $9,146,092

5) Landscaping and scenic beautification $126,016,403

6) Historic preservation $10,716,311

7) Preservation historic transportation facilities $57,774,608

8) Rail corridor preservation and trail development $68,102,531

10) Archaeological planning and research $791,795

12) Transportation museums $6,836,130

Manassas-Guth Covered Bridge; Manheim Railroad Station; Daniel Lady Farm, Gettysburg

Streamlining

• States can purchase “real property interests” (for an anticipated federally funded transportation project) in advance of full NEPA reviews.

• States must certify in writing the acquisition will not have an adverse environmental impact and will not limit alternatives.

• Section 106 still applies

• Secretary may establish conditions

• Before federal reimbursement, NEPA must be completed

Potential Problem: Certifying in writing does not guarantee that acquisition prior to review will not bias decisions or limit alternatives.

Section 1302: Exemption from NEPA review for advance acquisition

Streamlining

• For reconstruction or repair of roads, highways and bridges if in the same location, is of the same design, capacity, and dimensions.

• Materials are not mentioned.

• Section 106 still applies

• The Secretary is instructed to propose rules as to how to accomplish this categorical exclusion.

Potential Problem: Depends upon rule making. “Same design,” is a loose term – particularly without material consideration.

Section 1315: Categorical exclusion from EA’s or EIS’s in emergencies

Streamlining

Section 1316: Categorical exclusion from EA’s or EIS’s in existing “right-of-way”

• Property purchased for construction or mitigation

• Roadways, bridges, interchanges, culverts, drainage, clear zones, traffic control signage, landscaping, and any rest areas with direct access to a controlled access highway

• Section 106 still applies

• Secretary is to promulgate regulations

Potential Problem: Depends entirely upon contents of the regulations. Rights-of-way are held by DOT’s nationwide and include historic resources.

Streamlining

• Categorical exemption from EA’s or EIS’s less than $5 million

• Categorical exemption from EA’s or EIS’s 15% or less federal funds (unless project over $30 million)

• Section 106 Still Applies• Secretary of Transportation required to promulgate

regulations

Section 1317: EA and EIS exemptions for small projects

Potential Problem: Small projects can still have a big impact. This depends upon how the

regulations are written.

StreamliningGeneral calls to find other ways,

processes to expedite project delivery

????

Overall

Victories:• Preservation funding eligible

• More State/Local Opportunity

• National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) not specifically targeted

• 4(f) remains

Losses:• Funding for Byways, Acquisitions

• Less Money Available

• States can choose other programs

• NEPA Exemptions

• NEPA/Section 106 Coordination – exempting one may impact the other

OPPORTUNITIES

State/Local Access to FundingCompetitive grants

RulemakingRulemaking is a collaborative process. COMMENT!!!

2014 – The Next Transportation BillTo do well, we will need:

Good Data…

Job Creation

Demonstrated Return on Investment

Improved Project Delivery Times

Documented Community Support

Principles…

Cooperative Focus on Efficient Project Delivery

Wise use of public funds

Mutual interest in saving places & pursuing good transportation policy