Planning

Most states and metropolitan planning organizations consider the planning elements of ISTEA a good foundation for their transportation planning activities. One of the important characteristics of planning during the past 5 years has been partnership—not only the typical public/private partnerships, but also arrangements that involve partnerships among and within governmental agencies.

A general trend among agencies is a closer linkage between planning/programming and financial strategies for plan implementation. An element of ISTEA not universally endorsed is the requirement for a plan to be financially constrained, a requirement that may reduce the plan’s visionary characteristics.

Another trend to be noted is a closer link between planning and operations, such as intelligent transportation system activities, traffic engineering options, and demand management. This trend is a result of shifts in investment to system preservation, enhanced operational efficiency, and safety.

Still another area receiving increased attention is the incorporation of freight transportation into planning. Key elements of this increased attention include forecasting, economics, data requirements, and globalization of markets. Another important development resulting from ISTEA is the private sector’s increased emphasis on activities related to intermodal and freight-oriented activities.

Marshes of Glen, Georgia. Wetlands are among the environmental features that states must consider in transportation project planning and development.

Environment

There are two noteworthy trends in the transportation environmental area: (1) streamlining of the environmental review process to remove redundancy and speed up decisions on approval of permits, projects, and programs, and (2) more stringent rules and enforcement by environmental agencies in the regulation of non-point-source pollution.

Streamlining of Environmental Review. In recent years, many members of the transportation community have agreed that the form and administration of some environmental rules could be simplified without causing any environmental degradation. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency took one major step in response to these concerns with its revision of the Transportation Conformity Rule, effective September 1997. The Conformity Rule ensures that federally funded or approved transportation plans, programs, and projects do not contribute to violations of air quality standards or delay attainment of those standards. The revised rule replaces the "build/ no-build" test with a much simpler test that requires comparison of the build alternative with a previously adopted emissions budget. Many transportation planning agencies expect this action to reduce substantially the time and effort expended in modeling for the conformity requirement. Other changes include limiting of the requirement for network modeling to large urban areas, more discretion to advance previously planned nonfederal transportation projects, and more options for rural areas in demonstrating conformity.

Additional simplifying actions have been taken for transportation project development. The requirements for Section 404 of the Clean Water Act have been integrated into the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Section 404 regulates the discharge of dredged and fill material into U.S. waters, including wetlands. The federal government has developed guidance on satisfying Section 404 and NEPA requirements through an integrated process for transportation agencies seeking to implement projects. Another action is the streamlining of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for transportation enhancement projects. For many of these low-impact projects, a National Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement is increasingly being used by the states to satisfy Section 106 requirements; this approach can shorten the review process considerably.

Another emerging strategy for streamlining is based on making better use of environmental data. States are increasingly developing geographic information system (GIS) databases with overlays for such environmental features as wetlands, cultural resources, and endangered species. Such tools can greatly improve and expedite project planning and development by providing detailed and graphical information on where projects can best be sited to avoid environmentally sensitive areas.

More Stringent Rules and Enforcement. This trend has emerged as the more easily achieved means of pollution prevention have been exhausted. One case of great interest to transportation operating agencies concerns the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) of the Clean Water Act. In the past, with respect to stormwater, transportation agencies have been concerned with attenuating the flow to prevent flooding and damage. Increasingly, however, EPA is holding transportation agencies accountable for the quality of stormwater runoff. Eventually, this could lead to the costly retrofitting of mitigation structures and equipment.

As regards air quality, EPA, in response to its statutory requirement for periodic review of air quality standards, has revised the standards for ozone and particulate matter in accordance with new scientific evidence. Although the implications of the new standards are not yet fully understood, it is clear that the number of local jurisdictions in nonattainment of air quality standards will increase. To soften this impact, EPA has extended the dates by which areas are expected to achieve attainment of clean air standards. Moreover, to assist state transportation agencies, NCHRP has embarked on a study of the transportation implications of the new standards. This study is expected to be completed by September 1998.

The ISTEA reauthorization process highlights an ongoing debate on how to provide adequate funding for maintenance and improvement of the national transportation system while at the same time balancing the federal budget. Although these needs may not be fully reconcilable, a budgetary compromise will no doubt be achieved.

The national debate over federal funding levels obscures two major transportation funding issues. First, federal funding is a declining, minority share of total public-sector transportation funding. The large and increasing balance of public funds is provided by state and local governments. Second, current total levels of public funding for transportation do not appear to be adequate. U.S. DOT’s 1995 Status of the Nation’s Surface Transportation System reports that funding from all levels of government was 25 percent below the minimum needed to maintain the current condition of the highway system. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics’ 1996 Transportation Statistics Annual Report states that in 1994, 27 percent of all highways had poor or mediocre pavement condition, 27 percent of all bridges were deficient, 20 percent of urban transit buses were overage, and 22 percent of airport runways were in fair or poor condition.

Since funding is not keeping pace even with system preservation needs, it is critical that new funding sources and mechanisms be explored. In April 1997, TRB, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration, sponsored a conference on Transportation Finance for the 21st Century to address these issues. The conference, which was attended by more than 450 representatives of government, academia, and the private sector, explored the use of financing mechanisms common to other industries, but not often applied to transportation. Topics included means of accelerating transportation projects by leveraging available federal dollars, public/private partnerships, bonding, use of advanced technology to generate new revenues, federal credit assistance, road pricing, innovative procurement strategies such as turnkey and design–build, and the federal State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) program.

The U.S. DOT SIB program allows states to use federal dollars in a bank that can make loans and employ other mechanisms to provide fiscal leverage and attract substantial private-sector investment. The original program was limited to the participation of 10 states. The program proved very popular, and in June 1997 Vice President Gore announced its expansion to include 29 additional states and pledged almost $1 billion in new funds during the next 6 years. It may be noted that one of the issues raised at the TRB finance conference was how to ensure consideration of labor and environmental interests as transportation funding is increasingly defederalized by initiatives such as the SIB program.

There are three root causes of recent changes in transportation agency management and organization. First, organizational reinvention has been a continuing theme for most local, state, and federal governments as executives and legislators have responded to public demands for government to become more efficient and service oriented. At the same time, as suggested earlier, many transportation agencies have undergone a change in mission—from building extensive infrastructures to operating and improving increasingly congested transportation networks. Finally, funding for transportation programs has begun to shift from a simple basis of assured annual grants and fuel taxes or fare-box revenues to a more complex and less certain mix of grants, appropriated funds, user fees, debt financing, and private-sector participation.

In light of these challenges, a consensus is emerging that effective change requires the adoption of multiple strategies under the guidance of a strategic plan or vision. It is not enough to downsize by 20 percent or adopt a set of performance measures. Mission, staffing, culture, and structure all need to change in a manner that will result in a new kind of transportation organization for the 21st century.

The strategic vision being adopted by many transportation agencies, reflected in the earlier discussion of performance measures, is to become performance based: flexible, efficient, and oriented to results instead of bureaucratic and bound by rules. The approaches used to achieve performance-based change in a transportation agency are likely to include strategic planning to chart a new course and the adoption of performance measures and new budgeting systems to track progress. Staffing levels may be reduced and the workforce reshaped through training, quality initiatives, and new hiring to be top performers in a rapidly changing, high-tech environment. Market competition is introduced through outsourcing to the private sector such functions as operation of motor vehicle registration offices and design–build of rail transit lines, airport terminals, and highways. The focus of the agency is reoriented to serving the needs of customers.

As noted in the previous section, state transportation agencies are increasingly becoming performance based. At the federal level, U.S. DOT has adopted a multipronged approach for itself and each of its modal administrations: new strategic plans, performance measures and benchmarks, customer service plans, an ongoing quality initiative, and reduced staffing levels. In the overseas arena, a recent "scanning tour" sponsored by FHWA, AASHTO, and TRB introduced American transportation officials to performance-base