[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 89 (Monday, May 10, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25098-25114]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-11586]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-98-4370]
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21);
Implementation for the Transportation and Community and System
Preservation Pilot Program
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice; request for applications for Fiscal Year (FY) 2000
Transportation and Community and System
[[Page 25099]]
Preservation (TCSP) grants; request for FY 2000 TCSP research
proposals; request for comments on program implementation and research
needs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document provides guidance on section 1221 of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), which
established the Transportation and Community and System Preservation
Pilot Program. The TCSP provides funding for grants and research to
investigate and address the relationship between transportation and
community and system preservation. The States, local governments,
metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and other local and
regional public agencies are eligible for discretionary grants to plan
and implement transportation strategies which improve the efficiency of
the transportation system, reduce environmental impacts of
transportation, reduce the need for costly future public infrastructure
investments, ensure efficient access to jobs, services and centers of
trade, and examine development patterns and identify strategies to
encourage private sector development patterns which achieve these
goals. FY 2000 is the second year of the TCSP pilot program.
Through the TCSP, the States, local governments, MPOs, and other
public agencies will develop, implement and evaluate current
preservation practices and activities that support these practices, as
well as develop new, innovative approaches to meet the purposes of the
TCSP grant program (see section II in preamble). Funding for the TCSP
was authorized at $25 million per year for FY's 2000 through 2003 by
TEA-21. The Administration's FY 2000 budget proposes to increase the
funding for TCSP to $50 million as part of the President's Livability
Initiative. The FHWA seeks requests for FY 2000 TCSP grants, proposals
for FY 2000 TCSP research, and public comments from all interested
parties regarding implementation of the TCSP program and research
related to the program in FY 2001 and beyond.
DATES: Requests for FY 2000 grants should be received in the
appropriate FHWA Division office by July 15, 1999. Proposals for FY
2000 TCSP research should be received in the FHWA Office of Planning
and Environment by September 15, 1999. Comments on program
implementation, research needs, and priorities should be received by
the DOT Docket Clerk on or before July 15, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Grant requests should be submitted to the FHWA Division
Office in the State of the applicant. Division addresses and telephone
numbers are provided in an attachment to this notice. Research
proposals should be submitted to the Office of Human Environment,
Planning and Environment, Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.
Your signed, written comments on program implementation should
refer to FHWA Docket No. 98-4370 appearing at the top of this notice
and you should submit the comments to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT
Dockets, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590-
0001. All comments received will be available for examination at the
above address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt of
comments should include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan B. Petty, Office of Human
Environment, Planning and Environment, (HEHE), (202) 366-0106; or S.
Reid Alsop, Office of the Chief Counsel, HCC-31, (202) 366-1371;
Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington DC
20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
Internet users may access all comments received by the U.S. DOT
Dockets, Room PL-401, by using the universal resource locator (URL):
http://dms.dot.gov. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each
year. Please follow the instructions online for more information and
help.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem
and suitable communications software from the Government Printing
Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet
users may reach the Federal Register's home page at: http://
www.nara.gov/fedreg and the Government Printing Office's database at:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara. Information is also available on the
FHWA Web page: (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programs.html).
Background
Section 1221 of the TEA-21 (Pub. L. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107 (1998))
established the TCSP. The Department of Transportation's Strategic Plan
(1997-2003) includes a series of goals related to safety, mobility and
access, economic growth and trade, enhancement of communities and the
natural environment, and national security. The TCSP pilot program
furthers each of these goals and provides funding for grants and
research to investigate and address the relationship between
transportation and community and system preservation. By funding
innovative activities at the neighborhood, local, metropolitan,
regional, and State levels, the program is intended to increase the
knowledge of the costs and benefits of different approaches to
integrating transportation investments, community preservation, land
development patterns and environmental protection. It will enable
communities to investigate and address important relationships among
these many factors.
This notice includes three sections: Section I--Program Background
and Information of Implementation of TCSP in FY 1999; Section II--
Requests for FY 2000 TCSP Grants; and Section III--Requests for FY 2000
TCSP Research Proposals.
Section I: Program Background and Implementation of TCSP in FY 1999
Introduction
The TCSP provides funding for grants and research to investigate
and address the relationship between transportation and community and
system preservation. States, local governments and MPOs are eligible
for discretionary grants to plan and implement strategies which improve
the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce environmental
impacts of transportation, reduce the need for costly future public
infrastructure investments, ensure efficient access to jobs, services
and centers of trade, and examine development patterns and identify
strategies to encourage private sector development patterns which
achieve these goals. Through the TCSP, States, local governments, and
MPOs implement and evaluate current preservation practices and
activities that support these practices, as well as develop new and
innovative approaches. FY 2000 is the second year of the TCSP program.
The TCSP supports high priority goals of the administration for
transportation systems to foster sustainable communities and minimize
greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global climate change.
Transportation systems interact with built, social and natural systems
to produce short and long term environmental, social equity and
economic results. The TCSP strengthens these inter-relationships
between transportation plans, strategies and investments and community
development and preservation to help create sustainable communities.
Within
[[Page 25100]]
the context of sustainable communities, reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions in the transportation sector is one focus for the TCSP.
FY 1999 TCSP Program Implementation Process
The DOT established this program in cooperation with other Federal
agencies, State, regional, and local governments. The FHWA is
administering this program and has established a working group with
representatives from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the Research and Special
Programs Administration/Volpe Center (RSPA), the Office of the
Secretary of Transportation (OST), and the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). The working group prepared the initial design and
implementation of this program. In the first year of the program, the
working group gathered input through a Federal Register notice (under
FHWA Docket No. 98-4370) (September 16, 1998, 63 FR 49632) and through
meetings with stakeholders conducted as part of DOT's outreach
activities following the passage of the TEA-21.
In FY 1999, the FHWA received more than 520 Letters of Intent
requesting TCSP funding. These requests totaled almost $400 million and
were received from agencies in 49 States and the District of Columbia.
To review and evaluate the Letters of Intent, the FHWA established a
review process which included review and comments from the field staff
of the FHWA, the FTA, and the EPA as well as a 20-person review panel
comprised of technical program experts representing the agencies
participating in the working group described above. The review panel
recommended to the FHWA Administrator the applicants that were asked to
develop full proposals for further consideration. A similar panel
reviewed the full proposals. Information on the review process is
included below.
On April 26, 1999, the FHWA announced the award of 35 TCSP grants
for FY 1999. Grants were awarded to 28 States and the District of
Columbia. A list of the grants awarded in FY 1999 and a brief
description of each proposal are included under Attachment I to this
notice.
Summary of Comments to the Docket
The September 16, 1998, Federal Register notice (63 FR 49632)
requested comments on TCSP program implementation in FY 2000 and
beyond. Letters from the following organizations were submitted to the
docket (FHWA-1998-4370):
American Public Transit Association (APTA)
Metro (Portland, Oregon)
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (San Francisco, California)
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Montana Department of Transportation
NAHB Research Center
National Association of Home Builders
New York State Thruway Authority
The Trust for Public Land
Washington State Department of Transportation
Wisconsin Department of Transportation
Most of these letters included several comments. Some comments
responded directly to questions posed in the September 16, 1998,
Federal Register notice, while some comments expressed other
perspectives and concerns. Comments that respond to a question posed in
the Federal Register notice have been presented in items numbered one
through six in this section. Other comments have been grouped to
provide a logical presentation and avoid repetition and are included
under items numbered 7 though 10 in this section. Many of the comments
received were extensive, and have been paraphrased. The complete docket
may be viewed at the locations provided under the captions ADDRESSES
and Electronic Access in this preamble.
1. Project Selection Criteria
The FHWA asked whether there should be any additional weight or
priority applied to any of the criteria for FY 2000 and beyond; and
whether additional criteria for proposal evaluation should be added.
Comments: Several commenters offered suggestions for factors that
should be considered when evaluating TCSP proposals, including:
Evidence that the applicant can effectively complete the project in a
timely manner; whether the results could be replicated both locally and
nationally (i.e., avoid projects that are unique to local
circumstances); projects that have a high likelihood of success; and
planning proposals that would lead to implementation activities. A
commenter also suggested that TCSP proposals should be selected based
on how well they help answer key research questions and data
uncertainties. This commenter also proposed that the overall project
selection could be balanced using an ``Experimental Design'' that
provides a mix of different types of projects that focus on each of the
key research issues.
One commenter proposed that TCSP applications should be given
priority based on their ability to demonstrate: Adopted regional and
local policies that show a commitment to linking transportation
investments with land use development; a commitment to State growth
management requirements (such as having urban growth boundaries); and
substantial financial commitment to local transportation investments
that support alternative modes of travel and environmentally sensitive
land use development. Another commenter suggested that program
eligibility should require that proposals clearly address the link
between land use and transportation in the preservation of the
viability and effectiveness of the transportation system and the
community it serves. This commenter argued that the TCSP program
criteria and guidance, as currently written, would allow activities
with no relation to this land use/transportation link. While supporting
these points, another commenter added that the role transit can play in
land use considerations should also be emphasized in program guidance.
A commenter proposed that implementation grants in regions pursuing
a consistent set of mutually supportive policies should be given higher
priority and areas pursuing conflicting policies should receive lower
priority. The following example was given for a high priority
implementation grant: projects reinforcing established urban growth
boundaries, which would prevent ``leapfrog'' development and the need
to build additional highway capacity. An example of a lower priority
project would be in an area that proposes a transit-based development
project while simultaneously building new highway capacity in the same
corridor without a planning study demonstrating that these actions are
consistent.
Similar perspectives were offered by commenters who said that
implementation grants should be awarded in areas demonstrating an
understanding of the ``land use/transportation link'' and are currently
applying that understanding towards transportation system and community
preservation. These commenters proposed that priority be given to areas
that have demonstrated a strong commitment to these principles through
planning, public outreach, adoption of supportive land use regulations,
and commitment of Federal, State, and local funding to these
activities.
Response: We concur with the comments made regarding factors that
should be considered. With the intense
[[Page 25101]]
competition during the first round of the Letters of Intent (LOIs)
review, the workgroup focused on proposals that could begin immediately
upon selection, where the sponsor appeared to have the resources to
produce a successful project, and those LOIs that would produce
results, tools, and lessons that would be transferrable to other areas.
Language clarifying the distinction between planning grants and
implementation grants has been added to this notice. The FHWA will
continue to rely on input from the FHWA, the FTA, and the EPA field
offices to address concerns about the ``lower priority'' project
described by the commenter in this item number 1. This type of concern
also underscores the importance of funding only those activities that
are consistent with the Statewide or metropolitan planning processes
(see item number 2, ``Planning'').
The FHWA has added information in this notice about the types of
projects that were selected, grant and research themes for
consideration, and abstracts of the selected grants. It is the intent
of this pilot program to fund activities which address the interaction
of transportation and community and system preservation. The FHWA
believes that effectively linking land use and transportation planning
is a principle strategy to be investigated under TCSP. However, the
FHWA is also interested in pursuing other strategies that should also
be developed and evaluated under TCSP.
2. Planning
The FHWA asked how it can ensure that TCSP-funded activities
support the existing statewide and metropolitan planning process. How
can the FHWA support innovative activities, integrate new planning
techniques and refocus the planning process to ensure TCSP-related
activities are addressed? What is the best way for local governments
and non-traditional partners to coordinate with the State and
metropolitan planning process?
Comments: In general, there was strong support that TCSP proposals
should be consistent with and supported by statewide and metropolitan
planning processes. However, several commenters expressed concern that
the TCSP pilot could circumvent the existing statewide and metropolitan
planning processes, and proposed that the FHWA should require all LOIs
to include written confirmation or a letter of support from the
applicable State or MPO that the proposed project is consistent with
the statewide or metropolitan planning process. One commenter
contrasted the TCSP pilot to other discretionary programs (e.g., Access
to Jobs) that explicitly require coordination with the metropolitan
planning process.
Regarding the involvement of non-traditional partners, one
commenter suggested that letters of support from these partners should
be required as part of the LOI. A similar comment was made that a
demonstration should be made that all appropriate parties are involved,
including affected governments and transportation agencies, as well as
neighborhood, business, environmental, and social interest groups.
One commenter said that it is appropriate in the first year of the
pilot program to award grants for projects which have not been included
in the metropolitan or statewide transportation improvement program (23
CFR part 450), and went on to say that beyond the first year, projects
should be part of the metropolitan transportation planning process
before an LOI is submitted. This commenter suggested that to meet the
Transportation Improvement Plan(TIP)/State TIP fiscal constraint
requirement, the TIP/STIP could note that the project is conditioned
upon DOT's approval of the project, but establish the area's commitment
to the project. Otherwise, this commenter added, including the project
in the TIP/STIP becomes a pro forma activity with the decision to
support the project coming from the Federal rather than the local
level.
Two commenters supported using TCSP grants for a stand-alone phase
of a multi-phased project that has already been partially funded.
Response: Section II of this preamble, ``Relationship of the TCSP
to the Transportation Planning Process,'' describes the FHWA's
commitment to the transportation planning process that was established
by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)
(Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914 (1991)). Generally, the LOIs
demonstrated coordination with the appropriate State DOTs, MPOs, and
transit providers in the text of the LOI and some submitted letters of
support. Also, input from the FHWA, the FTA, and the EPA's field
offices was specifically sought on this topic because these offices are
familiar with metropolitan and statewide planning processes and
practices. This notice did not require States or MPOs to act as
``clearinghouses'' for LOIs, but rather encouraged coordination and
partnerships. The Federal Register notice for FY 2000 continues to
emphasize that the TCSP pilot should support statewide and metropolitan
planning processes. In addition, the notice encourages TCSP applicants
to notify the appropriate State DOT and MPO of their application to
further promote this coordination. Future reviews of full grant
applications will continue to look for evidence of this support.
As one commenter suggested, TCSP projects could be included in a
TIP/STIP for informational purposes. If the applicant is successful in
receiving funds through the competitive process, the project could then
be formally incorporated into the TIP/STIP. In general, projects should
not be included in the TIP/STIP as a pro forma activity, but should
reflect consistency with the appropriate regional or statewide long-
range transportation plan, which has been developed in accordance with
the requirements in the planning rule (23 CFR part 450). A single phase
of a multi-phased project would be eligible for TCSP funds if the
project meets the appropriate criteria. However, as noted in the FY
1999 Federal Register notice, TCSP funds are intended to fund new and
innovative activities, and not to be applied towards routine or ongoing
activities that would otherwise be undertaken by the State or MPO.
3. Grants
The FHWA asked how it can ensure improvements to a single location,
neighborhood street, or job center provide meaningful community
preservation impacts on the larger region. How should the FHWA balance
grant-making between planning and implementation grants? Should there
be a cap on the size of grants? Should land acquisition and right-of-
way purchases be funded?
Comments: One commenter proposed that initially there should be no
fixed percentage between grants to localities that are new to community
preservation practices (referred to as planning grants in the FY 99
program) and those localities that have already implemented some of
these practices (referred to as implementation grants in the FY 1999
program) and research, but early in the TCSP program, higher priority
should be placed on research and evaluation in the first three years
and equal weight on start-up and on-going grantees. In comparison, two
commenters advocated that there be no cap on grants or a specific split
between planning and implementation activities, but recognized that
given the available funds, a large grant request may not be feasible.
Another commenter supported a mix of grants, but recommended that most
of the TCSP funds should be used
[[Page 25102]]
for grantees that are already involved in community preservation
activities since the greatest benefits of the TCSP program will come
from the demonstration of actual practices.
Another commenter said that proposals for grantees already involved
in community preservation practices should demonstrate that prior
public information and involvement has occurred with all potentially
affected parties and that the project has already been approved by the
appropriate MPO. In addition to public involvement, proposals for
larger grants should also be able to demonstrate by analysis of data
and forecasts the expected impact of the project on the region and
perform a benefit and cost analysis that quantifies all expected
impacts.
Four commenters stated that land acquisition and right-of-way
purchases should be eligible for funding. One commenter clarified that
with the high cost of these types of activities the DOT should make
certain that they meet all of the TCSP criteria.
Response: Rather than setting specific limits on the types of
grantees, the FHWA will continue to seek a range of proposals, which
would take into consideration the category of grantee, type of project,
geographic location, population served, and urban/suburban/ rural mix.
One immediate goal of the pilot is to fund activities that will provide
demonstrable results, be instructive to future applicants and
contribute to the body of knowledge regarding the relationship between
transportation and community and system preservation. The FHWA will
also consider the percentage of grantees that are new to community
preservation and those that have already begun some of these practices.
The FHWA will use the results of evaluations of individual projects and
research to set priorities for the program in the future. Because it is
too early in the program for these results, in FY 2000, the FHWA is not
setting specific priorities but offers suggestions of new areas to
consider (see ``Strategic Priorities'' in Section II of this preamble).
While research is an important component of the TCSP program, the
FHWA disagrees with the comment that a majority of TCSP funds should be
used for research, rather than for grant activities. All over the
country, States, MPOs, local governments, and their partners are
engaged in, or are planning to begin activities consistent with the
TCSP objectives. The FHWA intends to use the available TCSP funds for
grantees to test, evaluate, and share these activities. In addition,
because TCSP requires evaluation and measurable results from grants,
the individual projects will further the knowledge base on community
preservation practices. As discussed under item number 5 in this
section evaluation is an important component of each successful grant.
Since the FHWA is interested in increasing the knowledge base,
producing tools, and lessons which can be replicated across the
country, projects which would produce quantitative data and forecasts
(including benefit and cost analyses) would be reviewed favorably.
Public involvement is a high priority in the TCSP pilot and is a
fundamental component of the metropolitan and statewide planning
process. To the extent that TCSP proposals implement or are linked to
the transportation planning process, these proposals should receive
adequate public involvement (including the involvement of non-
traditional partners). The involvement and participation of non-
traditional partners was a priority for all grants that were submitted
in FY 1999.
Right-of-way and land acquisition are currently eligible activities
within the context of a project or program that meets the TCSP
criteria. As stand-alone activities, they would still need to meet the
appropriate criteria.
4. Project Timeliness
The FHWA asked how important the time line should be for
implementation of projects in evaluation of proposals.
Comments: Some commenters thought timeliness was a very important
consideration in grant selections, while others thought it should not
be a primary concern. One commenter replied that timeliness of grants
to States, local governments, and MPOs that have already initiated
community preservation programs and policies is less important than for
other applicants because public involvement and benefits and costs may
have already been estimated in a prior planning study. The commenter
also stated that timing is less important for grantees that are just
beginning preservation practices since a primary purpose of TCSP
planning grants is to provide the opportunity for ``learning by doing''
through integration of transportation, land use, community development,
and environmental planning. In comparison, another commenter stated
that timing is important for grants to recipients that have not yet
initiated community preservation programs and policies. A third
commenter stated that timely implementation is very important and
should be used as a mandatory criterion for the program, adding that
grant awards should only be made if results are available to impact the
next transportation authorization bill in 2003. Another commenter
agreed that timely implementation should be used as a mandatory
criterion for the program, and that awards should only be made if the
grantee can show it is ready to implement the project in the year the
grant is made.
Response: The FHWA agrees with the commenters that timeliness of
the projects is important and should be a consideration in grant
selection. The FHWA will look at the applicant's ability to carry out
the TCSP proposal in a timely fashion and produce results that could be
shared nationally.
5. Evaluation of Projects
The FHWA asked how project sponsors can effectively evaluate the
results of activities. How can the results of individual project
evaluations be used to evaluate the overall impacts of TCSP?
Comments: One commenter responded that collecting the appropriate
data and analyzing complex relationships for evaluation purposes can be
expensive, and that the level of resources devoted to evaluation will
vary depending on the type of project. At a minimum, the desired
results of the project should be defined in terms of travel behavior,
land use, and community design and amenities. A means of measuring
whether these results have been achieved should be included in the
evaluation plan. A recommendation was made that a certain percentage of
projects be evaluated by an independent party, preferably by an
academic institution, adding that since the funding for research and
evaluation is limited, it may be useful to focus these activities at a
few centers, with each center specializing on one specific type of
project or research issue. Two other commenters proposed that the FHWA
contract with independent groups or non-profit associations to assess
the results of the program, and to inform the reauthorization process
in 2003.
Another commenter was concerned about the TCSP's emphasis on
performance measures because this is an area of much debate and
practical examples are difficult to identify and implement. This
commenter stated that the major focus of the TCSP program should be on
achieving the primary objectives for which the program was created and
not directing a disproportionate share of limited TCSP funds to
measuring outcomes, adding that project evaluation will be determined
in part by the objectives of a particular project which may be
[[Page 25103]]
difficult to measure with quantitative measures or analytical
procedures. Ultimately, this commenter argued, the first few years of
the program will reveal how projects can be deemed successful or not.
Response: The FHWA agrees with the commenters above which stated
that evaluation was very important to TCSP. The FHWA is working with
the DOT's Volpe National Transportation Systems Center and an
independent consulting firm to evaluate the TCSP program, during the
time frame of TEA-21. Furthermore, detailed guidance on evaluating
individual grants has been provided to FY 1999 TCSP grantees and is
electronically available on the website www.fhwa.dot.gov. The FHWA does
not anticipate that an appropriate project evaluation would use a
significant portion of project funding.
Since the TCSP program is a discretionary pilot that seeks to
encourage innovation and new strategies that go beyond traditional
transportation programs, it is incumbent on the FHWA to ensure that
appropriate evaluations are conducted to determine the effectiveness of
the strategies tested. Measurements should be reasonable based on the
objectives of the project and the need to inform future proposals and
funding decisions. The FHWA agrees that evaluation should be
appropriate and meaningful for guiding future funding decisions and
increasing our knowledge base about the interaction of transportation
and community and system preservation. The TCSP is a small pilot
program to develop new, effective strategies that can then be used
through regular transportation and land use programs. It is not
intended to implement preservation activities nationwide. Therefore,
the evaluation of strategies tested under TCSP is a principle outcome
of the TCSP activities.
6. Research
The FHWA asked what gaps currently exist in our knowledge of
transportation and community preservation practices. What experience--
both good and bad--do we have with work in this field? What tools do
practitioners need to achieve the integration of these issues in the
transportation planning process and in project implementation?
Comments: One commenter noted that by reducing the cost of living
and working outside central cities, U.S. investment in urban and rural
interstate highways has been a major influence on the growth of suburbs
and low density residential development. As urban population and
congestion has grown, transportation investment has improved access to
the suburbs, which in turn has encouraged decentralized, sometimes
specialized, employment sub-centers. More is known about the impact of
transportation investment on land use than the impact of land use
patterns on transportation modes. This commenter also added that for a
variety of reasons, continued transportation investment in new highway
capacity, subsidizing alternative modes, zoning/growth management, and
neotraditional planning have been the major policy approaches that have
been adopted or pursued. There are very few examples where such
programs have been in place long enough to determine cause-effect
relationships. Nor have appropriate data always been gathered to
develop solid estimates and forecasts of the impact of specific
policies. This commenter said the TCSP program is an excellent
opportunity to conduct research that would begin to determine the
cause-effect relationships of these investments and policy approaches,
and proposed the following research questions:
(a) What specific factors cause some people to leave cities and the
suburbs to live in the rural fringe when simultaneously other persons
choose to relocate in renewed urban areas to take advantage of urban
amenities?
(b) Is there a ``self-selection'' bias that needs to be accounted
for in evaluating the relationship between population densities, urban
form, and transportation behavior? Is the apparent average travel time
of approximately one hour per day masking the real differences in
travel time that is occurring? What are the impacts of current
congestion management and environmental protection policies on travel?
(c) The rule of thumb is that commute times to work have remained
roughly unchanged over time at about 20-25 minutes. Are people
adjusting their lifestyles to maintain relatively constant travel
times? Similarly, do people have a roughly constant ``travel time
budget'' of roughly one hour per day for all travel, or is it
different, in different geographic regions? If so, how important is it
to relieve congestion? Is there an opportunity to lay the foundation to
identify differences in ``travel time budgets'' in different regions of
the U.S.? What are the characteristics of those who travel less (or
more) than these apparent constants?
(d) The intent of urban growth boundaries is to encourage high
densities and minimize urban/suburban sprawl. In some instances, this
strategy to contain urban sprawl is being weakened by smaller urbanized
areas (within one hour commuting) seeking economic development in their
jurisdiction. In what circumstances is this desirable? What are
effective policies to limit undesirable outcomes. What opportunities
are there to correct mispricing?
One commenter found that the FY 1999 Federal Register notice placed
an emphasis on urban growth boundaries as a growth management tool, but
argued that the successes of this tool are limited, and at best not
very well understood. This commenter felt that analyses of the
relationship among urban growth boundaries, highway planning, mass
transit approaches, and housing affordability are needed before more
real-world experimentation with this tool is conducted, and encouraged
the FHWA to devote a significant portion of TCSP funds to research the
effectiveness of land use control policies such as urban growth
boundaries. This commenter urged the FHWA to direct TCSP funding toward
evaluating current land use-air quality models and creating new models,
as well as the relationship between highway expansion, land development
patterns, and air quality.
Response: The FHWA agrees with the commenters that there is much to
be learned about how to create livable communities. In section II of
this preamble on strategic priorities and research for the FY 2000
TCSP, the FHWA requests grants and research to begin to address these
questions.
7. Eligible Grant Recipients
Comments: One commenter encouraged the FHWA to allow non-
governmental entities to apply for implementation grants to provide
maximum flexibility to this new program. Another commenter said that
given the intent of the TCSP program (to address the relationship
between transportation and community and system preservation) it is
important that all entities with responsibility for the transportation
system be eligible to receive funding. This commenter recommended that
toll authorities and agencies be added to the list of eligible
recipients for this program particularly since toll authorities provide
transportation services that would be provided by the department of
transportation in another State.
Response: Eligible grant recipients were established by section
1221 of TEA-21. The September 16, 1998, Federal Register notice further
clarified the legislative language by providing the following examples
of units of local government: Towns, cities, public transit agencies,
air resources boards, school boards, and park districts. If the toll
authority is recognized by the State
[[Page 25104]]
as a unit of local government, then it is an eligible recipient for
TCSP grant funds. Non-governmental entities are encouraged to form
partnerships with eligible grant recipients as the project sponsor.
8. Local Matching Funds/Use of Other Federal Funds
Comments: One commenter observed that although the program
encourages local matching funds, there is no requirement for a local
match. This commenter advocated that local communities would take more
ownership of projects that require a firm match of funds generated at
the community level, and suggested a mandatory match ratio of 10 to 20
percent of local funds, with a related 80 to 90 percent of Federal
funds. According to this commenter, the local match could come from
local or statewide nonprofit groups or local, regional, or State
governmental entities. Other commenters supported a local match
requirement, and added that investment of other Federal funds
(including transportation funds authorized under TEA-21, as well as
Federal grants for Housing and Clean Water) would also demonstrate
local commitment.
Response: The September 16, 1998, Federal Register notice, under
``Priorities for all Grants'' stated that applications for grants will
be evaluated, among other factors, on a demonstrated commitment of non-
Federal resources. As the commenter correctly stated, matching funds
were not required. However, TEA-21 directs the Secretary to give
priority to applicants that demonstrate a commitment of non-Federal
resources to the proposed project. The FHWA agrees that providing local
matching funds demonstrates a stronger commitment at the local level.
In response to the comment regarding the use of Federal funds to
demonstrate local commitment, the FHWA also considers this to be a
demonstration of commitment. A number of successful TCSP applicants in
FY 1999 combined grant resources from other FHWA, FTA, EPA and the
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs to support an innovative
project. However, since the TCSP funds are intended to be used for
innovative activities, we did not review favorably proposals that could
be funded with other traditional sources of funds.
9. Urban Versus Rural Emphasis
Comments: One commenter found that the FY 1999 Federal Register
notice showed a bias toward larger metropolitan areas, noting that
smaller metropolitan areas are under growth pressures and could also
benefit from the TCSP pilot program. The suggestion was made that the
next solicitation for projects should use a broader range of examples
of potential projects to include both rural and small metropolitan
areas. In contrast, another commenter suggested that the TCSP program
should focus on urban areas, because those areas experience the most
intense pressure involving land use, transportation and community
preservation.
Response: The TCSP program is applicable in a wide variety of
settings where communities are trying to address the integration of
transportation and community and system preservation, and that TCSP
funds are equally applicable in urban, suburban, and rural areas. As
noted in this preamble, the FHWA will continue to seek a range of
proposals, which would take into consideration the type of project,
geographic location, and a mix of urban, suburban, and rural settings.
10. Federal Involvement in Local Land Use Actions.
Comments: One commenter claimed that through the TCSP program, the
FHWA is engaging in local land uses issues where historically local
governments and the electorate have made decisions. This commenter
expressed concern that the TCSP pilot would provide a precedent by
providing Federal funds to governmental entities and non-governmental
groups to develop and adopt certain land use policies and restrictions.
Response: The FHWA has no intention of using the TCSP pilot to
involve itself in local land use decisions. The FHWA is interested in
promoting and funding sound, yet innovative planning that
simultaneously considers transportation and community and system
preservation in the long-term. The FHWA strongly supports the statewide
and metropolitan planning process that was created by the ISTEA, and
relies on States and MPOs to use these processes, agency partnerships,
and public involvement activities to identify proposals that would be
eligible for TCSP funds.
11. Review Process
Comments: One commenter strongly supported a joint review and
approval process by the FHWA and the FTA.
Response: An interagency work group comprised of the FHWA, the FTA,
the FRA, the OST, the RSPA, and the EPA has reviewed all of the FY 1999
letters of intent and full grant applications for the TCSP pilot.
Participation has occurred at the field level (Regional and Division/
State offices) as well as from each agency's headquarters office. Final
decisions have been made by the FHWA Administrator based on the
recommendations of this coordinated, interagency partnership.
Information From the Technical Review Panel
A 20-person panel including technical program experts in highway,
transit, environment, railroad and planning reviewed the FY 1999
Letters of Intent and grant proposals for TCSP. The feedback from the
interdisciplinary experts that participated on the review panel on the
FY 1999 TCSP applications will be helpful to those developing proposals
for FY 2000. The panel used the criteria that were established in
section 1221 of TEA-21 and included in the Federal Register notice
(September 16, 1998, 63 FR 49632). In addition, the panel looked for
innovative strategies to meet the TCSP goals and geographic and
population diversity to include proposals to address urban, suburban,
rural, and disadvantaged populations. The panel noted that the more
than 520 LOI's submitted were worthwhile projects but that because of
funding limitations, it was necessary to identify only a very small
number that best met the purposes of the pilot program. The following
information from the panel discussions may be helpful to those
applicants that were not selected in FY 1999, as well as for those
applying in FY 2000:
(a) Purposes of the TCSP: Section 1221 of TEA-21 identifies five
purposes for TCSP projects. The purposes are broad and include
transportation efficiency, environment, access to jobs, services, and
centers of trade, efficient use of existing infrastructure, and land
development patterns. A key element of TCSP is exploring the link
between transportation and land development patterns. The panel looked
for innovative approaches that would test and evaluate the
effectiveness of integrating land use planning and transportation
planning to meet the purposes of TCSP. The panel looked for proposals
that were developed to specifically address each of these. In some
cases, a proposal would indicate that if congestion were reduced that
would also increase access to jobs planned in the future. The panel
looked for more proactive solutions, such as, working with agencies and
the private sector organizations involved in employment and jobs to
assure that the transportation system would meet the needs for access
to jobs. Similarly, on environmental issues, some applications
[[Page 25105]]
limited the potential impacts of their proposal to air quality issues
rather than addressing broader human and natural environmental issues
such as watersheds, ecosystems, habitat fragmentation, and community
and cultural impacts.
(b) Innovation: The TCSP is a small pilot program that is
developing and testing new strategies that can be used by State and
local agencies nationwide in their ongoing transportation programs.
Funding in TCSP is not intended to implement community preservation
practices nationwide, but to pilot test new approaches. As a pilot
program, TCSP is an opportunity for agencies to support and encourage
non-traditional approaches. Therefore, it may be appropriate to request
TCSP to support a smaller innovative portion of a larger project that
can be funded under other transportation funding. This may also help to
increase the local matching share committed to the project which is
also a factor in project selection. In addition, leveraging other
Federal funds (e.g., EPA, HUD, or other highway and transit funding) as
part of a larger project will also demonstrate local commitment to the
project.
The review panel recognized that what is innovative in one area may
not be innovative in another area and considered this in the
evaluation. This is consistent with the legislation which seeks to
encourage community preservation practices in areas that have not done
this before as well as to reward and encourage localities that propose
expanding on already successfully implemented preservation practices.
(c) Evaluation and Results: The evaluation component of TCSP
projects needs to demonstrate the expected results of the proposed
activities and measure the outcomes. This is critical for this pilot
program so that other communities can learn from and apply the lessons
learned. Therefore, clearly stating the objectives of the projects and
activities and the anticipated results were important in successful
proposals. In addition, successful proposals included a schedule of
major milestones for the project. If the project was a planning study,
the application demonstrated the likelihood that the results or
recommendations of the study will be implemented, by whom and when.
(d) Partnerships: The TCSP encourages public and private
participation in proposed projects. In addition, TCSP encourages
including non-traditional partners on the project team. The type and
scope of the project will determine the best mix of partners and
whether these should include members of the general public, as well as
environmental, community, business, and other groups. The roles and
functions of the partners should also be explained. For example, are
these groups to be surveyed or educated or will representatives of
these groups serve on the project team or on an advisory group?
FY 1999 TCSP Grant Awards
The activities and research funded under the TCSP program will
develop, implement and evaluate transportation strategies that support
transportation and community and system preservation practices. The
program will demonstrate transportation strategies that incorporate the
short- and long-term environmental, economic, and social equity effects
to help build sustainable communities. Examples of preservation
strategies being developed by TCSP grantees in the first year of the
program include transportation initiatives which: integrate land use
and transportation planning; balance economic growth, environment and
community values; create a long range vision for a community or region;
reuse existing infrastructure to meet the purposes of TCSP; develop
urban, suburban and rural strategies for communities; and establish
non-traditional partnerships to meet TCSP goals. Attachment I to this
notice lists the grants selected for TCSP funding in FY 1999 and
includes a brief abstract of each project.
Section II: Requests for FY 2000 TCSP Grants
Introduction
The grants and research funded under the TCSP program will develop,
implement and evaluate transportation strategies that support
transportation and community and system preservation practices. The
program will demonstrate transportation strategies that incorporate
beneficial short-and long-term environmental, economic, and social
equity effects to help build sustainable communities.
TCSP is included in the President's Livability Initiative. This
initiative strengthens current Federal programs, proposes new ones to
help create livable communities, and includes programs in the EPA, the
HUD, the Department of Interior (DOI), the Department of Justice (DOJ)
and other agencies in addition to the DOT (see http://
www.whitehouse.gov/CEQ/011499.html). Within the DOT, the Livability
Initiative will help ease traffic congestion and promote community
livability through a 15 percent proposed increase for several DOT
programs that provide flexible support to State and local efforts to
improve transportation and land use planning, strengthen existing
transportation systems, and promote broader use of alternative modes of
transportation. The Administration's Livability Agenda includes
increased funding for mass transit, Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ), Transportation Enhancements, and
TCSP. The TCSP pilot program in FY 2000 is proposed to increase from
$25 million authorized under TEA-21 to $50 million.
In FY 1999, the FHWA used a two-step procedure to solicit and
select TCSP proposals. Applicants were first requested to submit brief
LOIs. The FHWA selected a small number of applicants based on these
LOIs to prepare full grant requests for further consideration. After
the review of the full grant request, 35 proposals from agencies in 28
States were selected to receive TCSP funds. In FY 2000, the FHWA has
changed this procedure and is using a one-step process. The FHWA is no
longer asking for LOI, but only a grant request. From the grants
submitted on July 15, 1999, the FHWA will select those funded in
October, 1999.
With almost $400 million requested in FY 1999, competition for
these funds is expected to remain high. Grants may be spent over a
period of up to two years but no commitment can be made for second or
subsequent years of grant awards. Thus, phased projects should stand
alone and be capable of being implemented and producing results in each
phase. A sample outline and format for FY 2000 TCSP grant requests is
provided in Attachment II to this notice.
Eligible Recipients
State agencies, metropolitan planning organizations and units of
local governments that are recognized by a State are eligible
recipients of TCSP grant funds. This would include towns, cities,
public transit agencies, air resources boards, school boards, and park
districts but not neighborhood groups or developers. While non-
governmental organizations are not eligible to receive TCSP funds under
section 1221 of TEA-21, these organizations that have projects they
wish to see funded under this program are encouraged to form
partnerships with an eligible recipient as the project sponsor.
States or MPOs may be both a project sponsor and endorse other
activities proposed and submitted by a local government within its
boundary. A
[[Page 25106]]
State or MPO may consider packaging related activities for submittal as
one larger grant request.
Purposes of the TCSP Grant Program
Activities funded under TCSP should address and integrate each of
the purposes of the program listed below. Priority will be given to
those proposals which most clearly and comprehensively meet and
integrate the purposes and are most likely to produce successful
results. How well proposed projects achieve each of these purposes will
be a principal criterion in selecting proposals for funding. Applicants
should develop proposals that specifically address these purposes.
Grant proposals should address how proposed activities will meet and
integrate all of the following:
1. Improve the efficiency of the transportation system.
Proposals for TCSP activities should identify, develop and evaluate
new strategies and measures of transportation efficiency that are based
on maximizing the use of existing community infrastructure, such as
highways, railroads, transit systems and the built environment.
Proposals should address the transportation system as a whole rather
than focusing on one mode of transportation. This may include for
example, improving the integration of various modes of travel such as
highway, transit, pedestrian, bicycling, and rail or improving the
efficiency of port, rail and highway connections for freight and jobs.
Performance measures should include a focus on movement of people and
goods and access rather than movement of automobiles, and on services
provided rather than vehicle miles traveled.
2. Reduce the impacts of transportation on the environment.
Proposals for TCSP activities should explore the long-term direct
and indirect social, economic and environmental impacts of
transportation investments on the natural and built environment.
Consideration of environmental factors should not be limited to air
quality but should also address, if appropriate, ecosystems, habitat
fragmentation, water quality as well as community and cultural issues
such as disadvantaged populations and environmental justice.
Performance measures should relate the results of TCSP activities to
the larger community and regional environment and the transportation
system.
3. Reduce the need for costly future public infrastructure.
Proposals for TCSP activities should describe how they will reduce
the need for costly future public infrastructure investment or create
tools and techniques to measure these savings over the life cycle of
the activities. Performance measures should include projected life
cycle savings obtained through avoiding future investments or
maintenance.
4. Ensure efficient access to jobs, services and centers of trade.
Proposals for TCSP activities should clearly demonstrate how they
improve efficient, affordable access to jobs, services and centers of
trade and address benefits for disadvantaged populations. This could
also include the use of new technologies that increase access for
people and businesses while reducing the need to travel. Performance
measures should include improved access to jobs and services, and
improved freight movements.
5. Encourage private sector development patterns.
Proposals for TCSP activities should identify and test effective
strategies to encourage private sector investments that result in land
development patterns that help meet the goals of this pilot program.
Effectively linking land use and transportation is a key feature of
TCSP. Performance measures should demonstrate and monitor changes in
development patterns and private sector investment trends or
opportunities resulting from TCSP-related activities.
Priorities for Selection of Grants
In addition to meeting the purposes of TEA-21 discussed earlier in
this preamble, applications for grants will be evaluated based on the
following factors:
a. A demonstrated commitment of non-Federal resources. Although
matching funds are not required, priority will be given to projects
which leverage non-Federal funds and take advantage of in-kind
contributions such as maintenance agreements, land donations and
volunteer time. The contribution of local funds and resources for a
project demonstrates local commitment to a project and increases the
likelihood that it will be fully implemented. In addition to non-
Federal funds, grantees are encouraged to pursue other Federal
resources to support Livability Initiatives such as Transportation
Enhancement, Congestion Management and Air Quality funds, as well as
HUD, EPA, DOI and other programs. A description of the President's
Livability Initiative can be found on the White House Web site
(http:www.whitehouse.gov/CEQ/011499.html) and click on ``Virtual
Library.''
b. An evaluation component. The plans to evaluate the project's
objectives and outcomes is a key element of the grant proposal. The
evaluation plan should include major milestones and deliverables for
the project. See the discussion on Evaluation in this section.
c. An equitable distribution of grants with respect to a diversity
of populations. The FHWA will also be ensuring the equitable
distribution of funds to geographic regions, including an appropriate
mix of rural, suburban and urban activities. Applicants should describe
the populations that will be served by the project, including
disadvantaged populations.
d. Demonstrated commitment to public and private involvement
including the participation of non-traditional partners in the project
team. Such partners might include public utility operators, social
services agencies, community groups, environmental organizations, non-
profit organizations, public health agencies, private land development
organizations and real estate investors. The TCSP also envisions non-
traditional partners working on the project team and help develop the
assumptions and scenarios. This approach would be broader than public
involvement processes where transportation professionals prepare
projects, scenarios and assumptions and present these in public forums
for review and comment. In the proposal, applicants should describe the
role and commitments of their partners.
Category of Grantee
The TCSP was intended to support localities which have already
begun some preservation practices and to encourage those areas that are
just starting. The legislation referred to grants to these types of
grantees as implementation grants and planning grants, respectively.
These terms proved to be confusing to applicants in FY 1999 because
they are common terms used in transportation projects. Many interpreted
the terms to describe the activities conducted under a specific grant
proposal rather than describing the community preservation activities
of the grantee. Therefore, in FY 2000 the FHWA is asking grant
applicants to identify themselves as either: (a) grantees that are just
beginning to start community preservation practices, or (b) grantees
that have already initiated transportation related community
preservation programs and policies. This later category would include
grantees who have coordinated with State and locally adopted
preservation and development plans; integrated transportation and
community and system preservation practices; promoted investments in
transportation
[[Page 25107]]
infrastructure and transportation activities that minimize adverse
environmental impacts and lower total life cycle costs; or encouraged
private sector investments and innovative strategies that address the
purposes of the TCSP program.
Eligible Activities
Activities eligible for TCSP funding include activities eligible
for Federal highway and transit funding (title 23, U.S.C., or Chapter
53 of title 49, U.S.C.) or other activities determined by the Secretary
to be appropriate. This allows a broad range of transportation
activities to be funded. Grants will be awarded for new and innovative
transportation activities that meet the purposes of the TCSP program,
but remain unfunded under the current Federal-aid program.
Strategic Priorities for FY 2000 TCSP
Grants will be awarded for activities that meet the purposes of the
program described above and are innovative. The goal of the TCSP is to
develop a broad range of strategies for urban, suburban and rural
communities to help promote liveable communities through transportation
investments and operations. The legislative language that created TCSP
is general and provides States, MPOs and local agencies flexibility to
create innovative approaches to addressing the goals. As the program
evolves over the next four years, the FHWA will use individual project
evaluations conducted by grantees, the results of research, and overall
program evaluation to determine the strategic priorities for TCSP. This
information is not yet available since this is the first year of the
program and grants were just recently awarded. Therefore, in the second
year of the program, rather than setting specific strategic priorities,
the FHWA is providing information on the proposals funded in FY 1999
and several suggestions to prospective applicants of areas that are of
interest to the FHWA. The FHWA continues to seek additional strategies
that are innovative and can be replicated by others. Applicants should
highlight innovative and unique aspects of their proposals, and how the
results of their proposal will further the purposes of the TCSP.
Examples of preservation strategies being developed by TCSP
grantees in the first year of the program include transportation
initiatives which: Integrate land use and transportation planning;
balance economic growth, environment and community values; create a
long range vision for a community or region; reuse existing
infrastructure to meet the purposes of TCSP; develop urban, suburban
and rural strategies for communities; and establish non-traditional
partnerships to meet TCSP goals. A common theme in the proposals was
that the objectives were to use transportation solutions in unique ways
to help to meet long-term community goals rather than to only address
current mobility needs. Applicants should not seek to duplicate the
strategies being evaluated in FY 1999 unless there is a significant
change in the scope, application, or results of the strategy.
The FHWA is also interested in proposals which measure the results
and broad impacts on communities of current preservation practices
including urban growth boundaries, infill development, and land use
changes. This suggestion is also included in the request for research
proposals below as an opportunity for an independent assessment of the
outcomes of current preservation practices. Other areas that may be
considered include integrating community health and safety goals with
transportation to promote livable communities; planning or implementing
regional and local strategies to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions;
using technology and communications that provide people and businesses
with improved access to goods and services to promote livable
communities; and enhancing intermodal and freight access to promote
economic growth and access to jobs in communities.
The FHWA is particularly interested in supporting projects that are
ready to begin and have plans to collect and document results that can
be shared with others quickly and successfully. The proposal should
highlight when the proposal would be initiated and when results are
expected.
Evaluation
Every proposal funded under the grant program should include a
description of the applicant's plans for monitoring, evaluation and
analysis of the grant activity, and for providing the results of this
analysis to the FHWA. This information is necessary to provide an
opportunity for the DOT, States, MPOs, and local governments to learn
more about the practical implications of integrating land development,
transportation, and environmental decisionmaking. The grant request may
include funding for travel for one representative to attend two
national workshops to present the plans, status, and results of the
project.
The measures used to evaluate project results should be based on
the goals and objectives of the project. In addition to individual
project evaluations, an overall program evaluation will be conducted by
the FHWA under the research component of the program described in
Section III of this notice.
Developing measures to determine the results of the projects is
difficult and there is no general consensus on operative measures. A
resource guide on program evaluation for TCSP projects is available on
the FHWA Web page (http://tcsp-hwa.volpe.dot.gov/index.html). Methods
to measure and evaluate current and future performance may include, for
example:
1. Quantitative assessments such as measurement of changes in
traffic flow and mode choice (e.g., increased pedestrian and bicycle
traffic), environmental impacts and reduced vehicle miles of travel or
number of trips;
2. Analytic procedures which forecast the current and future
impacts of projects, such as, travel demand, land development, or
economic forecasting; or
3. Qualitative assessment, such as, interviews, surveys, changes in
local ordinances, or other anecdotal evidence.
Relationship of the TCSP to the Transportation Planning Process
The TCSP will complement, improve and enhance the Statewide and MPO
planning process created by the ISTEA, and refined by TEA-21. This
process promotes the ongoing, cooperative and active involvement of the
public, transportation providers, public interest groups, and State,
metropolitan and local government agencies in the development of
statewide and metropolitan transportation plans and improvement
programs (23 CFR part 450).
Grant proposals should clearly demonstrate the coordination and
consistency with appropriate statewide and metropolitan transportation
planning processes. TCSP applicants are encouraged to notify the
appropriate State DOT and MPO of their application to ensure this
coordination. In addition, the FHWA will post the list of FY 2000
applications and titles of the proposals on its Web site as soon as it
is available.
The DOT fully supports this planning process, which has brought
diverse constituencies and government agencies together, and views the
TCSP activities as a logical step in the continuing improvement of
transportation planning at the State and regional level. The TCSP can
help broaden the scope and impact of the planning process to better
integrate land development planning, environmental goals and
objectives, economic development, social equity considerations, and
other private sector
[[Page 25108]]
activities. The integration of interest groups, investors and
developers through partnering with government applicants is a goal of
the program. The TCSP activities also consider incorporation of much
longer planning horizons and consider the impacts on future
generations.
Activities funded by this program may be used to test or implement
new, innovative planning methods and programs that significantly
enhance the existing statewide and MPO transportation planning
processes. The TCSP funds are intended to leverage new transportation
and community preservation initiatives rather than to fund the ongoing
planning activities of States and MPOs. The TCSP-funded activities
should demonstrate coordination with the State or MPO to ensure the
planning process is not circumvented. In addition, activities should
encourage and improve public involvement in the overall planning
process as well as in the individual project.
Construction projects funded by the TCSP will ultimately be
included in an approved State or MPO TIP. The TCSP funds should not be
requested for projects that have already been scheduled for funding and
are in the current State or MPO TIP. Highway and transit projects which
either use Federal funds or require Federal approvals, and are in air
quality nonattainment or maintenance areas, should be included in an
air quality conformity analysis required as part of the transportation
planning process. Because TCSP projects may target improved air quality
as part of their broader goals, documentation of the beneficial air
quality impacts of the project will be important.
Non-construction activities funded by the TCSP, such as the
development of regional plans and policies, project evaluations and
land development code changes, may not need to appear in a statewide or
MPO TIP, but should still have the support or endorsement of the State
or MPO. Planning activities funded by TCSP should be reflected in the
metropolitan area's Unified Planning Work Program. Non-construction
activities may result in changes to existing State and MPO plans and,
therefore, need coordination with other jurisdictions within a
metropolitan region or State.
Schedule and Administrative Processes for FY 2000 Applications
There are several options for the administration of grants under
TCSP. The FHWA has established financial management systems with the
State Departments of Transportation and anticipates that most TCSP
grants will be channeled through this established process. However, if
another process such as a cooperative agreement or grant through
another eligible agency (e.g., a public transit agency) is preferred,
the applicant can work with the appropriate FHWA Division Office to
develop a different funding mechanism.
An applicant should send four (4) printed copies and a diskette
with a file (optional, as described in Attachment II of this notice) of
the TCSP grant request to the FHWA Division Office in the State in
which the project is located by July 15, 1999. Applicants should note
that the FHWA is not requesting the 4-page LOI's that were used for the
FY 1999 selection process. The FHWA will use input from field staff and
an interagency technical review panel similar to the process used in FY
1999 to evaluate proposals that will be funded. Questions about the
grant program should be directed to the FHWA Division Office in the
State in which the applicant is located. The time line for FY 2000
applications for TCSP and a proposed time line for FY 2000 follows:
FY 2000 Time Line for TCSP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TCSP milestones FY 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Federal Register Notice Request May 1999.
for FY 2000 Grants, Research
proposals, and comments.
Grant requests and comments due to FHWA July 15, 1999.
Division Offices.
Research proposals due to FHWA......... Sept. 15, 1999.
Grants awarded......................... Oct. 1999.
Research projects awarded.............. Jan. 2000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section III: Requests for FY 2000 TCSP Research Proposals
Introduction
The TCSP includes a comprehensive research program to investigate
the relationships between transportation, community preservation, and
the environment, and to investigate the role of the private sector in
shaping such relationships. The research program also includes
monitoring, evaluation, and analysis of projects carried out under the
grant program.
Program Evaluation and Outreach
Program and project evaluation is an important part of the TCSP. To
meet the purposes of the pilot program and develop strategies and
methodologies that can be used by localities, measurable results and a
means to disseminate this information are needed. In addition to the
evaluation of each project conducted by the grantee, the FHWA will
conduct an overall program evaluation combining the results of the
grants and the research program to help set the strategic direction and
future priorities for the TCSP. An important measure for the success of
TCSP is the extent to which the results and best practices from the
pilot program are used effectively by government agencies, the private
sector, and others.
Under the research component of TCSP, the FHWA will establish
outreach, technical assistance, and other means to share and implement
the results elsewhere. Current outreach plans include Federal Register
notices, the grant workshop, the FHWA web site information, and
participation in other conferences and meetings.
Research Program
The goal of the research program is to build a knowledge base of
work in this field that will enable State, regional and local
government agencies, the private sector and neighborhood groups,
through transportation activities, to help shape sustainable
communities that meet current and long-term environmental, social
equity, and economic goals. With coordination and input from its
partners and stakeholders, the FHWA will identify and initiate needed
research to support the purposes of the TCSP. The research program is
integral to the TCSP, and it will support and complement the activities
conducted through planning and implementation grants. Likewise, applied
research activities that may be a part of a grant activity would be
beneficial to the research program.
This notice requests comments and suggestions on the research
program and also solicits specific research proposals. The FHWA
anticipates that most of the TCSP funds will be allocated for grants
and that limited funding will be available for research. The FHWA is
soliciting comments on the research needs to support the TCSP and will
initiate TCSP research to meet the needs that are identified. In
addition to FHWA conducted research under the TCSP, the FHWA is
soliciting research proposals for consideration in funding in FY 2000.
The research may be conducted through cooperative agreements with
organizations, contract support, or through State, local, and MPO
grants.
The FHWA emphasizes that it anticipates that very limited funds
will be available for research in FY 2000. The FHWA proposes to solicit
research
[[Page 25109]]
proposals that address the following areas:
1. Evaluation of results of current community preservation
practices. Information is needed on the specific outcomes of current
statewide, regional, and local community preservation practices, such
as, green corridors, smart growth, urban growth boundaries, higher
density development, and land use controls to improve transportation
efficiency. Research should include both costs and benefits of these
initiatives and performance measures.
2. The FHWA is seeking research on the development of needed tools
and methodologies to support decision makers. Transportation-related
tools and analytical techniques will be enhanced to help support the
State and local decision makers in taking a longer term view and
balancing economic, social equity, and environmental goals.
Attachment I: FY 1999 TCSP Grant
Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot Program
Project Description Summaries
Alaska
01: Municipality of Anchorage: ``Anchorage Metropolitan Area
Transportation Study (AMATS) Community Transportation Cooperative''
$250,000
Re-design the public involvement program by determining the most
effective processes and technology to empower the public, to
facilitate communication, and to motivate the community to engage in
meaningful dialogue in land use and transportation issues. Apply the
new program to the Ship Creek Multimodal Transportation Plan, an
area with controversial land use/transportation/ community
preservation issues located adjacent to the downtown Anchorage
Central Business District.
Arizona
05: City of Tempe: ``Transit Overlay District and University Drive
Subarea Study/Integrated Transportation Plan, Model, and Local
Transit-Oriented Design Guidelines'' $225,000
Complete the community-driven elements of the comprehensive
transportation and land use plan.
Activities include:
A transportation subarea study and implementation plan
for University Drive that will coordinate neighborhood goals to
narrow/traffic calm the street while identifying strategies to
combat a range of area transportation issues with an approach that
emphasizes both non-SOV transportation and community redevelopment.
Creating a transit-oriented overlay district model,
which can be supported by neighborhoods and the development
community. Implement on University Drive and in the NewTowN service
area. Apply to other parts of Tempe and communities.
California
13: San Francisco Planning Department: ``Land Use Support for the
Mission Street Transit Corridor'' $177,000
Develop a plan for transit-oriented development in the Mission
Street Transit Corridor and its diverse mix of mostly medium- and
low-income residents, who depend on transit for journey-to-work
trips. Prepare a transit-oriented land use plan for the Balboa Park
Station at the southern end of the corridor and use as a model for
how transit-oriented development can increase the city's share of
new mixed-use residential and commercial development, how it can
strengthen land use and transit links, how it can increase transit
use, how it can encourage mixed-use residential and commercial
infill sensitive to neighborhoods, how it can refocus the city's
neighborhoods towards transit and away from the automobile, and how
it can ease some of the burdens placed on private-sector
development.
45: City of Escalon: ``Escalon High School Linkage Project''
$150,000
Link the community high school with a variety of land uses via
two separate alternative transportation corridors: (1) The Southern
Link--A pedestrian plaza, roadside park and woonerf on a portion of
SR-120 abandoned as a result of highway realignment; and (2) The
Northern Link--A Class-I bicycle lane along Miller Avenue providing
a direct link between the high school and community center and a
bicycle/pedestrian activated crossing signal. Mitigate the impacts
associated with the widen roadways. Populations benefitting from the
project include both students and senior citizens.
64: Mono County: ``Lee Vining Community Planning Project'' $182,000
Create a consensus-driven vision to provide transportation and
land-use planning guidance to a small town that serves as a main
gateway to Yosemite National Park. Identify the community's role in
balancing the need for tourism with the preservation of community
character and quality of life. Balance the multiple needs and users
who depend on a major state highway facility serving as a local Main
Street. Identify mitigation opportunities for seasonal traffic
impacts in and around the park, focusing on the proper integration
of the YARTS with Lee Vining and other communities bordering the
park. Provide a model for intergovernmental cooperation and public
involvement for unincorporated rural areas struggling with
transportation and land-use issues.
Connecticut
01: Hartford Metropolitan Area: ``Picture It Better Together:
Taking Transportation Goals From Policy to Reality'' $480,000
Examine the links between transportation, land use, and economic
development at both the neighborhood and regional level by
researching sustainable development practices informed by local and
regional perspectives. Identify traditional forms of circulation and
land use patterns in three prototypical communities--one urban, one
suburban, and one rural--then plan for integrative patterns of
development in each. Research and form best development practices,
business incentives, and public/private support for these strategies
at the regional level and facilitate discussions about regional
interdependence. Develop human-scaled land use designs at the
neighborhood level to integrate multiple transport modes and address
traffic conflicts.
District of Columbia
01: Metropolitan Washington Region: ``Implement Adopted
Transportation Vision for the Metropolitan Washington: Develop
Circulation Systems and Green Space'' $380,000
Implement two key components of the region transportation
vision: (1) improvements of circulation systems within the regional
core and regional activity centers and (2) integration of green
space into a regional greenways system. Involve key agencies,
officials, and stakeholders and identify financial resources for
project implementation. Design comprehensive regional programs which
identify priority projects for implementation and encourage the
inclusion of these projects into the region's Constrained Long Range
Plan (CLRP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
Florida
05: Gainesville Metropolitan Area: ``Develop and Apply Integrated
Land Use and Transportation Sketch Planning Methods'' $150,000
Develop sketch planning methods and simple model refinements to
better estimate the effects of various land use, non-motorized
transportation and transit strategies on travel choices and
behavior. Develop analytical methods to post-process certain outputs
of the traditional four-step travel demand forecasting process to
better represent the land use-transportation connection. The goal is
not methodological elegance but rather ease of rise and improved
predictive power. Activity addresses all modes of travel,
particularly as they relate to different land use characteristics
within the metropolitan area.
Idaho
01: Ada/Canyon Counties: ``Treasure Valley Futures: New Choices for
the American West'' $510,000
Develop an education process which defines barriers to attaining
these goals and identifies a range of alternative choices for policy
implementation that can be incorporated directly into the existing
land use and transportation policy framework. The project should
result in an increase in the number of policy decisions being made
by agencies and other groups supporting local and regional
objectives. The project approach is designed to work within the
Treasure Valley's fragmented political framework and deeply held
beliefs concerning private property rights.
[[Page 25110]]
Kentucky
01: Central Bluegrass Region: ``An Integrated Model for
Transportation Planning and Context Sensitive Design'' $435,000
Produce two linked products that will aid in realizing and
attaining TCSP goals. Provide innovative guidance and strategies to
aid communities in reconciling development pressures with the need
for livable communities through the Corridor Master Planning
Handbook. Detail the fusion of visualization software with group
facilitation and decision techniques for purposes of promoting
consensus across a diverse community regarding roadway improvements
through the Visualization Guide. These tools will address local
planning questions that arise from regional concerns and aid in
understanding the link between them. The project focuses on the
development challenges found in the historic Bluegrass Region of
Kentucky and involves both traditional and non-traditional partners.
Louisiana
01: New Orleans Metropolitan Area: ``Transportation/Community
Systems Optimization Through Non-Traditional Partnering and
Infrastructure Prioritization'' $450,000
Develop and implement various mechanisms to affect land use
growth factors and system tools in order to guide transportation
development, community and system preservation and regional
metropolitan sprawl. Traditional tools and non-traditional
approaches will be employed. Develop regional strategies and tools
leading to a long-range plan and a map of growth/sprawl boundaries
for a regional livability standard based on balance and
sustainability. Develop a capital project management plan for the
effective and efficient timing and construction of transportation
infrastructure, and establish a framework for the control and
monitoring of regional metropolitan sprawl. Form coalitions of
interest groups in the region to realize the level of knowledgeable
voter tax support to implement sustainable land use and
transportation growth measures.
Maryland
04: State of Maryland: ``Maryland Integrating Transportation and
Smart Growth (MINTS)'' $450,000
Use integrated Smart Growth and transportation planning
strategies to: maintain and enhance existing communities and
contribute to their quality of life and economic vitality;
demonstrate how investments in transportation strategies can
encourage well planned growth where it is desired and discourage new
development where it is inconsistent with Smart Growth objectives;
and use sound growth management to facilitate community
conservation, preservation of infrastructure capacity, and ``smart''
transportation strategies. The project will be carried out in 2-3
locations representing two distinct growth-management settings: (1)
an urban community with challenges to improve the efficiency of the
existing transportation system, to conserve the community, and to
prompt re-development and infill development and (2) in exurban and
suburban areas with sprawling development patterns which threaten
rural resource protection goals, generate highway and other
infrastructure needs, and environmental and transportation system
efficiency issues.
Michigan
05: Saginaw Metropolitan Area: ``Retrofitting Anytown, USA''
$48,000
Conduct a public design charrette to look at retrofitting two
intersecting suburban corridors, making the area both pedestrian and
transit friendly. Focus on issues of pedestrian mobility and
accessibility, and public transit with the ``visioning'' and
recommendations providing planning directions to local agencies and
private enterprises to retrofit the existing auto-dominated
environment.
12: Lansing/Tri-County Region: ``Regional Growth: Choices for Our
Future'' $355,000
The Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, representing
Clinton, Eaton and Ingham Counties and the Lansing, Michigan
metropolitan area, has initiated Regional Growth: Choices For Our
Future to Develop a series of innovative pilot planning techniques
which will demonstrate enhanced planning methods which may be
readily transferred to similar efforts nationwide. Formulate
consensus on a new land use patterns and on new policies to guide
land use change. Evaluate and track successful implementation by
creating a ``Sprawl Index'' and a comprehensive evaluation program
using real cost studies and fiscal impact analysis, analysis of how
transportation investment decisions and asset management strategies
effect urban sprawl, gathering information on why people relocate,
and developing monitoring measures.
Missouri
06: Kansas City Metropolitan Area: ``SMART CHOICES--Options for
Creating Quality Places'' $600,000
The Mid-America Regional Council (MARC), project will build on
regional and local planning efforts addressing the better
integration of transportation investments and land use decisions.
Provide tools specifically designed for Midwestern communities to
promote urban and suburban development compatible with sustainable
community design. Activities include: (1) the development of
Transit-Oriented Development prototypes, education, and other
implementation strategies; (2) a cost-of-development analysis that
will provide fiscal information relative to alternative development;
and, (3) an interactive compact disc to communicate information on
alternative design concepts and specifications.
Montana
06: City of Laurel: ``Transportation and Community Sustainability
Plan'' $85,000
Develop a `Transportation and Community Sustainability Plan' for
the City of Laurel. Activities include: (1) analyzing the traffic
and community impacts of major transportation features; (2)
analyzing the overall transportation system (current and planned)
and its implications for sustainability; (3) analyzing the land use
patterns and their contributions to the traffic situation; (4)
analyzing the sustainability of the community's commercial core in
the face of transportation-related threats; (5) analyzing non-
motorized travel; (6) analyzing how different assumptions in
transportation and land use can lead to more sustainable scenarios
for the future; and (7) creating an action plan for a more
sustainable Laurel.
New Jersey
14: Northern New Jersey: ``Preparing Modern Intermodal Freight
Infrastructure to Support Brownfield Economic Redevelopment''
$700,000
Facilitate the redevelopment of abandoned industrial brownfield
sites by freight related businesses at the port, airport, and rail
terminals in northern New Jersey. Leverage statewide and regional
resources to overcome current constraints affecting brownfield
redevelopment. Conduct a market analysis, compile an inventory of
promising brownfield sites, perform outreach to communities and
carry out detailed case studies. Completed plan will address needed
transportation access to brownfield sites and effectively market the
sites for freight related activities and provide new employment
opportunities for urban residents, avert inefficient sprawl, reduce
the volume of trucks on regional roads and safeguard the
environment.
34: State of New Jersey: ``Transit-friendly Communities for New
Jersey'' $535,000
Work with diverse community partners to develop specific ways
that New Jersey towns can become more ``transit friendly,'' by
building on both NJT's initiatives to make train stations themselves
``passenger friendly'' and on statewide ``smart growth'' initiatives
to reduce sprawl and encourage new development within walking
distance of transit stations. Develop educational workshops,
technical assistance and demonstration projects in four to six
communities to shape a new vision for linking train stations to
community enhancement. Implement a series of short-term, catalytic
demonstration projects in the districts immediately around train
stations to spur community involvement and leverage local investment
and participation. Maximize its relevancy to the state's diverse
community involvement and leverage local investment and
participation. Leverage the talents and resources of NJT's non-
profit and government partners to shape the future of communities
around NJT stations well into the 21st Century. Develop models for
other New Jersey communities to follow in future NJT projects.
Ensure that communities understand how transportation investments
can enhance the environment, create strong downtown centers, and
improve quality of life.
[[Page 25111]]
New York
02: City of Troy: ``Waterfront Redevelopment'' $70,000
Develop a Transportation and Land Use Study as a part of a
redevelopment planning process for South Troy's Working Waterfront.
Address the needs of this long underutilized waterfront and
facilitate the area's development as an appealing and efficient
business, residential, cultural, and recreational center. Inventory
and analyze the existing land use pattern and transportation system,
evaluate redevelopment alternatives, and identify and implement a
series of compatible land use and transportation strategies and
projects for the study area. Combine planning techniques including
community workshops and visioning sessions, design charettes, and
planning and architecture student involvement. Build upon
collaborative working relationships with traditional and
nontraditional partners including community-based, organizations and
nonprofit agencies, as well as private, public, local, regional,
County and State agency representatives. Develop a plan to maximize
efficiency in transportation access while minimizing environmental
and related impacts of the proposed redevelopment.
North Carolina
06: Research Triangle Region: ``Regional Development and Mobility
Principles'' $450,000
Develop strategies to change the 6-county Research Triangle
region's current pattern of development from a conventional suburban
expansion model to one based more on principles supportive of
compact urban form with walkable. Activities include: A detailed
description and analysis comparing the land use, transportation,
fiscal and environmental implications of the preferred regional
development pattern to the current development pattern. A
comprehensive set of strategies composed of design and development
standards, infrastructure policies, fiscal tools, and legislative
authority needed to achieve the preferred development pattern. A set
of computer visualizations and supporting explanatory material
showing how places within the region could develop differently under
the preferred pattern or under the current pattern. A community
outreach and feedback effort to explain the project's work, monitor
communities' views of the work, and revise the work to address
community concerns.
Ohio
10: Woodmere Village, Cleveland: Making Chagrin Boulevard a
``Place'' Instead of a Dividing Road: A Greater Cleveland
Demonstration Project in Woodmere Village, Ohio'' $195,000
Redefining Woodmere Village, a small, predominantly African-
American suburb of Cleveland, in a highly creative manner. Create an
environment for small town community interactions while
simultaneously handling 26,000-36,000 ADT on its ``Main Street.''
Provide a local demonstration project which balances the interests
of ``home,'' ``place'' and business with the goal of commuter
convenience. Set the stage to adopt new zoning and land use policies
to encourage denser, more sustainable development in the future.
12: City of Dayton: ``Tool Town'' $300,000
Evaluate the existing buildings, transportation infrastructure,
and utilities and the development of a schematic campus master plan
with capital costs, an implementation schedule, and funding
strategies. Tool Town will make more efficient use of existing
transportation network and other infrastructure and reuse land and
the built environment, both of which will curb additional regional
sprawl. The effort will also create jobs that can be filled by
Dayton residents; support the long-term viability of tooling and
machining in our region; help tooling and machining industry compete
globally; and retain these secure, high-paying jobs in the United
States.
Oregon
05: Portland Metropolitan Area: ``Urban Reserve Planning for the
Portland, Oregon Metropolitan Region'' $500,000
Develop master planning for the area must occur before
development begins to ensure efficient provision of services and
infrastructure and effective environmental conservation. Help local
governments address the difficult transportation, land-use and
environmental challenges of the area, including: Streams on the
recent federal listing of endangered fish; Mitigation of addition
impacts on severe downstream flooding; Local topography that creates
a serious challenge in transitioning from a few two-lane country
roads to a system that can serve the expected future population.
11: Willamette Valley: ``Evaluate the Transportation Impacts of
Possible Futures in Oregon's Willamette Valley Organization''
$600,000
Provide a unique, long-range, regional focus on: (1) the
transportation consequences of continuing current land development
patterns in the Valley; (2) the benefits possible through
alternative, transportation-efficient development patterns that are
based on more compact growth and urban designs that reduce reliance
on the automobile; and (3) the benefits possible through certain
changes in the transportation system. Focus on all current and
future travel between the metropolitan areas, cities and towns in
the 11,500 square mile Valley. Activities include: (1) the
development, modeling and analysis of possible future land use and
transportation scenarios; (2) public outreach and education; (3)
development of recommended actions and implementation strategies to
achieve a preferred future; and (4) development of regional
benchmarks and a monitoring framework to track progress.
Pennsylvania
05: Centre County: ``Creating a Community-based Sustainable Future
for I-99: A Watershed Approach'' $500,000
Establish a collaborative, multi-municipal model interchange
overlay district ordinance to better manage and guide development
surrounding the 12 interchanges in Centre County of I-99 in Centre
County and create a watershed-wide (mid-Bald Eagle watershed
including the Spring Creek Basin), community-based collaborative
land use and sustainability plan to meet the long-term needs of the
community.
08: Philadelphia Metropolitan Area: ``Implement Transit Oriented
Development in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area: Schuylkill
Valley Metro (SVM) Corridor Station Area Planning and
Implementation'' $665,600
Implement TOD principles and induce private sector investment in
TODs by: (1) creating an innovative LEM Product that provides
mortgage financing for housing in transit dense areas, (2)
undertaking a region wide advocacy project to sow the seeds of
public support for TODs, (3) producing a transit corridor-specific
real estate market demand feasibility study that provide a greater
level of understanding of TODs within the real estate community
(thereby reducing the perceived risk to developers) and (4)
preparing zoning ordinance language, to implement focused station
area plans, that provides a supportive regulatory environment for
TOD. Innovative activities include: (1) the proposed LEM Product;
(2) the timing of the planning and development regulations work and
garnering public support for TOD, well in advance of implementing a
major transportation investment; and (3) basing the development
controls on a corridor and station-focused real estate market study.
Rhode Island
11: City of Providence: ``Olneyville Square Inter-modal Transit
Center'' $600,000
Revitalize neighborhood by using transportation and intermodal
facilities that will capitalize on an urban river, recycle
brownfields, promote home-ownership and support small business
development. Focus on the commercial heart of the neighborhood,
which was once the second largest commercial area in the City, by:
siting a public Transit Center, linking the Woonasquatucket
Greenway/Bikeway project to the Transit Center, and re-connecting
Olneyville Square and the Transit Center to the West Broadway
neighborhood.
South Carolina
01: Berkeley, Charleston, Dorchester Region: ``Development and
Implementation of a Model Program Strategy to Link Transportation,
Infrastructure and Land Use Planning for the Berkeley Charleston
Dorchester Region of South Carolina'' $300,000
Evaluate past and future growth patterns and promote sustainable
growth in the Berkeley, Charleston, and Dorchester region, the
Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of Governments (BCDCOG).
Utilize satellite imagery to graphically depict growth patterns over
twenty years in the region and using the identified patterns to
project impacts for the future. Estimate the costs of sprawl.
Evaluate environmental losses of growth patterns at the continued
rate and pattern. Compile
[[Page 25112]]
alternative land use and growth pattern strategies and the identify
techniques to encourage organized and sustainable growth. Illustrate
the impacts and costs (in environmental losses as well as fiscal
impacts) of particular growth patterns as experienced in the past
twenty years, as well as to project those same impacts and costs if
a similar pattern of growth is continued. Develop alternatives and
recommendations to encourage smarter and more efficient growth.
Tennessee
01: Johnson City: ``The Land Use and Transportation Plan'' $275,000
Integrate land use planning with transportation planning to
increase the performance and efficiency of the transportation
system. Adopted formal code changes to land use regulations based on
the principles of traditional neighborhood development and transit
oriented development. Create opportunities for intensified mixed-use
development to occur in neighborhood nodes and permit increased
accessibility for pedestrians, bicycles, and transit. Evaluate
projected traffic volume and type with and without adoption of the
new regulations. The results of the Land Use and Transportation will
be able to be used by other communities across the State of
Tennessee and nationally.
Texas
14: City of Houston: ``Main Street Corridor Planning and Research
Project'' $500,000
Develop a singular, urban vision for the eight-mile Main Street
Corridor. Encourage transit and pedestrian-oriented development,
improve access to the corridor, explore ground-breaking
implementation strategies, and institute innovative evaluation
techniques. Build partnerships among public agencies, private and
non-profit interests as a vital component of the planning process.
Reinforce trends toward inner city revitalization leading to a
reduction of automobile dependency and improved air quality in the
region.
Utah
07: Greater Wasatch Area: ``Envision Utah'' $425,000
Create a broadly and publicly supported Quality Growth Strategy-
a vision to protect Utah's environment, economic strength, and
quality of life for our children. Create a replicable process for
planning and managing rapid growth and development. Seek community
feedback and participation to assist in the development of a
publicly supported Quality Growth Strategy and pursuit of actual
implementation of this strategy in the Greater Wasatch Area. Develop
and draft final Quality Growth Strategy and pursue actual
implementation of this strategy in the Greater Wasatch Area. Utilize
modeling tools to assist Envision Utah in the cost and impact
analysis of the alternative growth scenarios.
Virginia
03: Charlottesville Metropolitan Area: ``Jefferson Area Eastern
Planning Initiative'' $517,920
Develop a new model for integrated land use/transportation
planning and use it to achieve a regional plan which lays the
groundwork for the community's 50-year vision. Build upon planning
tools the PDC has developed to improve the multi-modal design of
neighborhoods, commercial centers, and transportation corridors.
Package as a handbook, CD-Rom, and on the Web to make it easy for
other small urban and rural communities to use them.
Washington
02: Central Puget Sound Region: ``Transit Station Communities
Project'' $400,000
Use a variety of tools that will contribute to the success of
intermodal facilities by working with citizens, neighborhood groups,
the business sector, developers, elected officials, and agency
personnel to create more livable communities. Organize and initiate
both region wide coordination as well as local technical assistance
efforts. Coordinate the numerous and disparate station area planning
and development activities throughout the region to reach out to
local jurisdictions, the development community, and the public to
increase the level of awareness and understanding of the
opportunities and challenges of intermodal station planning. Provide
direct technical assistance and improve community outreach and test
a variety of different techniques aimed at advancing local
implementation and expanding local community participation.
West Virginia
01: City of Martinsburg: ``Historic Baltimore & Ohio Roundhouse
Renovation Project'' $300,000
Develop plans and specifications to renovate/restore the
Historic B&O Roundhouse complex. Establish an intermodal operations
center to coordinate these services in relation to port commerce,
commuter systems, commercial trade, travel and tourism which ties
together the highway, rail and air transportation system from within
the inland intermodal port area to the historic infrastructure links
in a manner which will enhance commerce, cultural/recreational
opportunities, and transportation best practices. Develop a Facility
Use Plan to chart the course for the complex's development. Provide
direction for local officials and the community as they strive to
both preserve and effectively transform the existing facility into a
key element of the entire transportation, retail trade and community
complex. Purchase a trolley bus which will be used as a key short
term commuter link with the existing transportation system by
providing access to the MARC Train and the Pan Tran Public
Transportation System.
Wisconsin
01: Dane County: ``Design Dane Phase II'' $365,000
Provide Dane County communities with the tools necessary to
thoroughly evaluate competing land development scenarios. Design a
technical geographic model, standards, and process to more
efficiently present to decision makers the true costs and benefits
of alternative growth patterns. Consider alternatives to simply
adding more lanes when making improvements to congested roadways.
Coordinate between land use and transportation decision making in
communities along roadway corridors. Design and implement transit-
oriented development (TOD) projects that may be used as models for
future development within our primary transit corridor.
Attachment II: Sample Outline and Format for FY 2000 TCSP Grant
Requests:
Cover Sheet With Abstract (1 Page)
I. Project Information
Project Title and Location:--------------------------------------------
Agency:----------------------------------------------------------------
Key Contact:-----------------------------------------------------------
Address:---------------------------------------------------------------
Phone/Fax/E-mail:------------------------------------------------------
Amount Requested: $----------------------------------------------------
Abstract
This should be a brief paragraph describing the project and the
expected results. Describe the scale of activity such as rural,
urban, statewide, etc. and provide information on the types of
populations affected by the project (i.e., size of population,
commuter, disadvantaged, minority, etc.).
II. Project Description
Narrative: Briefly describe the project, the geographic scale of
the proposed activity (system, region, corridor, etc.), its expected
results in the short-and longer-term (20-40 years), and the
applicant's expectations or vision for the ultimate impact of the
activity.
III. Purpose and Criteria
Objectives: Further describe the project and its objectives.
Relate how it furthers and integrates each of the following purposes
of the TCSP program:
1. Improve the efficiency of the transportation system;
2. Reduce the impacts of transportation on the environment;
3. Reduce the need for costly future investments in public
infrastructure;
4. Ensure efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of
trade; and
5. Examine development patterns and identify strategies to
encourage private sector development patterns which achieve the
goals of the TCSP.
IV. Category of Grantee
Grantees should determine if their agency is: (a) Just beginning
community preservation practices in their area, or (b) If they have
already implemented community preservation practices. Grantees in
this later category should provide brief information on established
community preservation practices within their community or
jurisdiction.
[[Page 25113]]
V. Coordination
Indicate how the proposal is consistent with State and
metropolitan planning processes and how the appropriate MPO or State
Department of Transportation coordination will be demonstrated.
VI. Partners
List, and briefly describe if necessary, the agencies,
organizations, and companies participating in the activities or on
the project team. Describe the role and functions of the non-
traditional partners participating on the project team. Describe
plans for involvement or education of the private and public sector.
VII. Schedule
Provide a schedule to complete the major steps or milestones in
the project. Include dates of major milestones for project
activities, the evaluation and when written reports of the project
activities will be submitted.
VIII. Budget and Resources
This section should include a list of all funding, both Federal
and non-Federal, and in-kind resources for the project. Priority is
given to proposals that demonstrate a commitment of non-Federal
resources. Proposals should clearly describe use of in-kind and
direct funding contributions and distinguish contributions that are
made directly for the proposed projects from those made for other
related activities. The budget should include a list of the major
costs by category for the project. This could include, for example,
personnel costs, travel, services, project evaluation including any
contract services, etc. The budget should also show how the TCSP
funds and other matching funds are used for these activities. The
budget may include the costs for travel for one representative of
the project team to participate and present the status and results
of the project at two national conferences.
IX. Project Evaluation Plan
The FHWA has prepared guidance on the preparation of evaluation
plans for TCSP. This will assist in preparing and summarizing the
preliminary plans for evaluation of the activity, including means of
monitoring, indicators and measures of performance, and plans for
reporting results. Copies of this guidance can be found on the FHWA
website (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/program.html) or from the FHWA's
Division office in the applicant's State (see Attachment III):
Proposal format for submissions: This example format will assist
applicants in preparing your proposal submission. The FHWA does not
anticipate that these grant requests will be very lengthy (recommend
no more than 15 pages). Any attachments that are included should be
directly related to the proposal. Because the FHWA will make copies
of the grant proposals for the review process, requests should be in
a similar format:
General Format
Page Size: 8\1/2\'' x 11'' (including maps and attachments)
12 point font, single sided
Clip the top left corner--no binding or staples
Any colored documents (including maps) should be reproducible in
black and white
Include on each page of your submission the project title and page
number
Format for Additional Electronic Submission (Optional)
Electronic Format: Include proposal (without attachments) in
WordPerfect version 6/7/8 or Word version 97 or earlier on 3\1/2\
inch floppy disk labeled with your project title and name.
No watermarks, embedded text, or graphics.
Project submission: Please submit 4 copies and an electronic
file of the grant request to the FHWA's Division office in your
State. The request should be in the Division office by Thursday,
July 15, 1999.
Attachment III--FHWA Division Offices
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State FHWA address, phone no.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...................... 500 Eastern Boulevard, Suite 200,
Montgomery, AL 36117-2018, 334-223-7374.
Alaska....................... P.O. Box 21648, Juneau, AK 99802-1648,
907-586-7180.
Arizona...................... 234 N. Central Avenue, Suite 330,
Phoenix, AZ 85004, 602-379-3916.
Arkansas..................... Federal Office Building, 700 West Capitol
Avenue, Room 3130, Little Rock, AR 72201-
3298, 501-324-5625.
California................... 980 9th Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA
95814-2724, 916-498-5015.
Colorado..................... 555 Zang Street, Room 250, Lakewood, CO
80228-1097, 303-969-6730, Ext. 371.
Connecticut.................. 628-2 Hebron Avenue, Suite 303,
Glastonbury, CT 06033-5007, 860-659-
6703, Ext. 3008.
Delaware..................... 300 South New Street, Room 2101, Dover,
DE 19904-6726, 302-734-3819.
District of Columbia......... Union Center Plaza, 820 First Street,
N.E., Suite 750, Washington, DC 20002
202-523-0163.
Florida...................... 227 North Bronough Street, Room 2015,
Tallahassee, FL 32301, 850-942-9586.
Georgia...................... 61 Forsyth St., SW, 17th Floor, Suite
17T100, Atlanta, GA 30303-3104, 404-562-
3630.
Hawaii....................... 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Suite 3202, Box
50206, Honolulu, HI 96850, 808-541-2531.
Idaho........................ 3050 Lakeharbor Lane, Suite 126, Boise
83703, 208-334-9180, Ext. 119.
Illinois..................... 3250 Executive Park Drive, Springfield,
IL 62703-4514, 217-492-4641.
Indiana...................... Federal Office Building, Room 254, 575
North Pennsylvania Street, Indianapolis,
IN 46204-1576, 317-226-7475.
Iowa......................... 105 6th Street, P.O. Box 627, Ames, IA
50010-6337, 515-233-7302.
Kansas....................... 3300 South Topeka Blvd., Suite 1, Topeka,
KS 66611-2237, 785-267-7281.
Kentucky..................... John C. Watts Federal Building and U.S.
Courthouse , 330 West Broadway Street,
P.O. Box 536, Frankfort, KY 40602, 502-
223-6723.
Louisiana.................... Federal Building, Room 255, 750 Florida
St., Room 255, P.O. Box 3929, Baton
Rouge, LA 70801, 225-389-0245.
Maine........................ Edmund S. Muskie Federal Building, 40
Western Avenue, Room 614, Augusta, ME
04330, 207-622-8487, Ext. 20.
Maryland..................... The Rotunda, Suite 220, 711 West 40th
Street, Baltimore 21211-2187, 410-962-
4342, Ext. 124.
Massachusetts................ Transportation Systems Center, 55
Broadway, 10th Floor, Cambridge 02142
617-494-3657.
Michigan..................... Federal Building, Room 207, 315 West
Allegan Street, Lansing, MI 48933, 517-
377-1844.
Minnesota.................... Galtier Plaza, Box 75, 175 East Fifth
Street, Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55101-
2904, 651-291-6105.
Mississippi.................. 666 North Street, Suite 105, Jackson
39202-3199, 601-965-4223.
Missouri..................... 209 Adams Street, Jefferson City 65101,
573-636-7104.
Montana...................... 2880 Skyway Drive, Helena, MT 59602, 406-
449-5303, Ext. 236.
Nebraska..................... Federal Building, Room 220, 100
Centennial Mall North, Lincoln, NE 69508-
3851, 402-437-5521.
Nevada....................... 705 North Plaza Street, Suite 220, Carson
City, NV 89701-0602, 775-687-5321.
New Hampshire................ 279 Pleasant Street, Room 204, Concord,
NH 03301-2509, 603-225-1606.
New Jersey................... 840 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 310, West
Trenton, NJ 08628-1019, 609-637-4200.
New Mexico................... 604 W. San Mateo Road, Santa Fe, NM
87505, 505-820-2022.
[[Page 25114]]
New York..................... Leo W. O'Brien Federal Building, Clinton
& N. Pearl Ss., 9th Floor, Albany, NY
12207, 518-431-4131.
North Carolina............... 310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410, Raleigh,
NC 27601, 919-856-4347.
North Dakota................. 1471 Interstate Loop, Bismarck, ND 58501-
0567, 701-250-4347.
Ohio......................... 200 North High Street, Room 328,
Columbus, OH 43215, 614-280-6896.
Oklahoma..................... 300 N. Meridian, Suite 105 S, Oklahoma
City, OK 73107-6560. 405-605-6174.
Oregon....................... The Equitable Center, Suite 100, 530
Center St., N.E., Salem, OR 97301, 503-
399-5749.
Pennsylvania................. 228 Walnut Street, Room 558, Harrisburg
17101-1720, 717-221-4585.
Puerto Rico.................. Federico Degetau Federal Building and
U.S. Courthouse, Carlos Chardon St., Rm
329, San Juan, PR 00918-1755, 787-766-
5600, Ext. 230.
Rhode Island................. 380 Westminster Mall, Fifth Floor,
Providence, RI 02903, 401-528-4560.
South Carolina............... Strom Thurmond Federal Building, 1835
Assembly Street, Suite 758, Columbia, SC
29201, 803-765-5282.
South Dakota................. The Sibley Building, 116 East Dakota
Avenue, Pierre, SD 57501-3110, 605-224-
7326, Ext. 3043.
Tennessee.................... 249 Cumberland Bend Drive, Nashville, TN
37228, 615-736-5394.
Texas........................ Federal Office Building, Room 826, 300
East Eighth Street, Austin , TX 78701,
512-916-5511.
Utah......................... 2520 W. 4700 South, Suite 9A, Salt Lake
City, UT 84118, 801-963-0182.
Vermont...................... Federal Building, 87 State St., P.O. Box
568, Montpelier 05601, 802-828-4433.
Virginia..................... The Dale Building, Suite 205, 1504 Santa
Rosa Road, Richmond 23229, 804-281-5103.
Washington................... Suite 501, Evergreen Plaza, 711 South
Capitol Way, Olympia, WA 98501, 360-753-
9554.
West Virginia................ Geary Plaza, Suite 200, 700 Washington
Street. E, Charleston, WV 25301-1604,
304-347-5929.
Wisconsin.................... Highpoint Office Park, 567 D'Onofrio
Drive, Madison, WI 53719-2814, 608-829-
7506.
Wyoming...................... 1916 Evans Avenue, Cheyenne, WY 82001-
3764, 307-772-2004, Ext. 41.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA/FTA Metropolitan Offices
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York..................... 6 World Trade Center, Room 320, New York,
NY 10048, FAX: 212-466-1939, 212-668-
2201.
26 Federal Plaza, Suite 2940, New York,
NY 10278-0194, FAX 212-264-8973, 212-668-
2170.
Philadelphia................. 1760 Market St., Suite 510, Philadelphia,
Pa 19103, 215-656-7070, FAX: 215-656-
7260, 215-656-7111.
Chicago...................... 200 West Adams, Room 2410, Chicago, IL
60606, 312-886-1616, FAX: 312-886-0351
312-886-1604.
Los Angeles.................. 201 N. Figueroa Street, Suite 1460, Los
Angeles, CA 90012; 213-202-3950; FAX:
213-202-3961.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; sec. 1221, Pub.L. 105-178, 112 Stat.
107, 221 (1998); 49 CFR 1.48.
Issued on: May 3, 1999.
Gloria J. Jeff,
Federal Highway Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-11586 Filed 05-07-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
