Infra Insight Blog : written by Nossaman LLP Infrastructure attorneys, covers infrastructure project delivery, including Public-Private Partnerships, Operations & Management Agreements, policy, and news.

The White House’s Council on Environmental Quality has issued two draft guidance memos regarding important NEPA compliance issues that may add another regulatory layer to infrastructure project development.

The draft guidelines on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, issued on February 18, 2010, require that environmental impact evaluations by federal agencies address GHG.  Among other things, federal agencies are required to quantify and describe expected direct and indirect GHG emissions, to discuss measures to reduce GHG emissions, and to qualitatively discuss the link between the proposed action's GHG emissions and climate change.  By adding to the list of matters an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment must address, the new guidelines not only are likely to increase the cost and time necessary to prepare NEPA documents, but also may provide additional avenues through which project opponents could challenge projects. 

Draft guidelines on NEPA mitigation and monitoring requirements are intended to require federal agencies to adopt (1) binding commitments to implement mitigation measures, (2) monitoring programs to "ensure" the mitigation is implemented, and (3) reporting systems so that the public knows if and how the mitigation measures are implemented.  The guidelines "are intended to reinforce existing requirements and responsibilities", but nevertheless could increase the impact of mitigation requirements on projects, in terms of both cost and time. 

The draft guidelines are open for comment for a 90-day period. 

Nossaman has issued an E-Alert providing a more detailed analysis of these new guidelines.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

USDOT Announces $1.5 Billion in TIGER Grants – $60M in TIFIA Allocations

On February 17, the one year anniversary of the landmark American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, USDOT announced the final list of TIGER grant recipients. Grants range in size from $3.15M for a roadway rehabilitation/reconstruction in Burlington, VT to a $105M grant for construction of two new intermodal facilities in Memphis, TN and Birmingham, AL to support freight rail service from the Gulf Coast to the Mid-Atlantic.  

When combined with state and private funds, the TIGER funds will support approximately $4 billion in transportation investment, according to AASHTO, which estimates that States have already started or completed 12,250 recovery projects worth $26.4 billion.  

Shortly after releasing the final list of grantees, USDOT released a statement outlining key areas for investment, which included:

• Freight Rail: 11 national freight projects to help get freight off America’s highways and onto rail.

• Road and Bridge Repair: 13 highway infrastructure projects to make critical repairs to roads and bridges that are in dire condition.

• Community Livability: 22 livability projects aimed at giving Americans more choices about how they travel and improving access to economic and housing opportunities in their communities.

These investments may be signaling a shift in federal policy, and build upon the HUD-EPA-DOT partnership to promote livability and sustainability which the Obama Administration announced last June. Each project was evaluated for its ability to help achieve the following goals:

• A state of good repair for our existing transportation facilities;
• Enhanced economic competitiveness;
• Safer streets and communities;
• Environmental sustainability; and
• Enhanced community livability.

The Administration seems to be applying these principles to other discretionary programs as well, notably the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program, which received $60M in new funding under the TIGER grant program, nearly half of the $122M annual apportionment it had been receiving under SAFETEA-LU. 

Five grantees will be eligible for the TIGER TIFIA Payment program, which allows grantees to pay the subsidy and administrative costs of the TIFIA credit assistance program using TIGER grant funds. 

The TIFIA TIGER payments will be leveraged with state and other funds to support several larger projects. The largest of these grants – $20M allocated to the North Texas Toll Authority for improvements to a high-growth corridor near Dallas-Ft. Worth – could support a federal loan of approximately $300-$400M. 

The TIGER TIFIA allocation fell short of the statutory cap, which would have allowed USDOT to apply up to $200M of the TIGER funds to federal credit assistance. In the past year, competition for TIFIA funds has intensified and USDOT has reinstated the competitive application process it abandoned in 2002. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

USDOT has published new program guidance for the TIFIA Program which clarifies project selection criteria and processes. The new guidance is the product of long deliberation at USDOT, which withdrew an earlier proposal last spring. [See USDOT Withdraws Proposed Changes to the TIFIA Program.]

The notice:

• Announces a change in TIFIA selection criteria and processes going forward – rather than the current first come, first served basis for project submission, the new process would pool all letters of interest and apply weighting criteria to choose the “best” projects.

• Requests comments on a potential pilot program that would allow the borrower to pay the government’s subsidy cost for the project.

• Announces funding availability for 2010 (beyond what has been reserved for projects already pending approval).

New selection criteria would weigh projects according to projected impacts on safety, livability, sustainability, economic competitiveness and state of good repair. The new process will implement application deadlines to allow staff time to evaluate projects according to the clarified criteria, prior to submission to the Credit Council for final selection.  For consideration in the FY 2010 funding cycle, Letters of Interest must be submitted by December 31, 2009, using the revised form on the TIFIA website. 

The proposed pilot program could greatly expand the reach of the TIFIA program.   By allowing borrowers the option to pay the full subsidy cost of TIFIA assistance, USDOT hopes to extend credit to qualified projects that would otherwise be denied assistance solely due to funding constraints. Comments regarding the potential pilot program must be submitted by December 31, 2009.

Nossaman will provide a detailed analysis of the notice, which will be available via E-Alert or on the firm’s website.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Obama Administration recently outlined its proposal for enhanced federal safety oversight of subways, light-rail and municipal bus systems. USDOT Secretary Ray LaHood said, “Now, would we prefer that states regulate their own systems? You bet. But some states simply lack the resources to do that. And, in a pinch, some state will cut safety items from their budgets. For transit passengers those cuts are too dear.”     

The proposed “Public Transportation Safety Program Act of 2009” would authorize the Secretary, through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), to set and enforce minimum federal transit safety standards and ensure that transit safety efforts grow in tandem with increased ridership.

USDOT is currently prohibited from establishing federal transit safety standards, and instead relies on 27 State Safety Oversight Agencies (SSAs) to monitor transit safety as provided in 49 CFR Part 659.   Following several transit incidents earlier this year, FTA Administrator Peter Rogoff announced the Administration’s intent to enhance federal oversight.  [See “FTA Considering New Safety Oversight for Rail Transit.”]  Funding, independence, and enforcement powers are critical concerns for SSAs, which average less than one staff person per transit agency and in some cases rely on transit revenues from the systems they oversee.  

Under the proposed program, FTA would be authorized to promulgate minimum national standards for rail transit safety, applicable to all fixed rail systems not currently under Federal Railroad Administration jurisdiction. (The legislation would also authorize bus safety regulatory authority but DOT expects its initial focus to be on rail transit safety.)

States could choose to continue transit safety oversight on behalf of FTA, but only when FTA finds that the SSA has:  

•          an adequate number of fully-trained staff to enforce federal regulations;
•          been granted sufficient authority by its governor and state legislature to compel compliance by the transit systems it oversees; and
•          sufficient financial independence from any transit systems under its purview. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) division has weighed in on road user fees based on vehicle miles traveled or VMT. Their latest report “Implementable Strategies for Shifting to Direct Usage-Based Charges for Transportation Funding” responds to VMT’s critics who say the transportation funding method would be too challenging and require a lengthy implementation period. The report outlines strategies for shifting to direct user-based charges for transportation funding, focusing on incremental VMT mechanisms which can be fully implemented in the next five years. The discussion is generally limited to the technical aspects of various VMT fee mechanisms, avoiding the thornier issues of public and political acceptance.

The issuance of the NCHRP report adds to a growing body of support for a revamping of the traditional means of funding highway construction and maintenance. In February of this year, the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission issued its final report recommending the use of VMT. Interim and long-term VMT strategies will no doubt have a central role in the upcoming debate over the surface transportation reauthorization measure.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has endorsed USDOT’s policy of allocating Highway Trust Fund (HTF) apportionments based on total lane miles in each state – including miles of highway built, operated or maintained through public private partnerships (PPPs). 

Each state’s share of the nation’s highway system (quantified as “lane miles”) has factored in federal aid allocations since 1976, though initially this measure excluded tolled facilities. In 1998, Congress greatly expanded the use of the lane mile funding formula with TEA-21, and eliminated the exclusion of toll roads from the allocation formula.

On guidance from GAO, Congress has used lane miles as a proxy for need, rather than relying on direct measures of need.  Under a “direct need” model, a state that let its roads crumble might be able to demonstrate a greater need, and garner more federal aid, than a state that responsibly invested in maintenance.   

GAO’s report, prepared for Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, describes the high level approach Congress has taken, which bases funding decisions on “states' highway system needs taken as a whole, not on direct state highway system construction or operating costs.” Under this approach, states can pursue critical transportation projects through PPPs without fear of diminishing their share of HTF dollars. 

GAO’s ruling recognizes the political and fiscal realities facing state transportation agencies. Denying inclusion of these PPP projects in the HTF allocation calculus would put states that have demonstrated their need for more funds and taken positive steps toward self-help by reaching out to private partners at a disadvantage. 

The report follows on the heels of two new bills introduced by Senator Bingaman, one of which, if adopted, will place a heavier burden on states seeking to deliver transportation projects through PPPs.  The Transportation Equity for All Americans Act (S. 884) would reduce the funding such states receive through their Highway Trust Fund allocation by changing the grant allocation formulas for several programs to exclude privately operated facilities from the state network. The bills are currently before the Senate Committees on Environment and Public Works and Finance. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

New subway safety standards may be coming soon to a city near you.  The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has assembled a team of transportation safety experts to explore rail transit (subway, light rail, and commuter rail) safety reforms, which may extend to bus operations.   

FTA is currently prohibited by law from establishing national safety standards, requiring Federal inspections, or requiring specific operating practices, but that may soon change.  In testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, FTA Administrator Peter Rogoff condemned several recent transit collisions as “unacceptable” and announced the Obama Administration’s intent to pursue reform. 

Most rail transit is free from federal safety oversight. There are exceptions - certain commuter rail systems are funded by FTA but regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration safety regulations.  But the majority of urban rail transit systems are overseen by the State safety oversight agencies. 

Any new safety oversight requirements will probably be tied to FTA’s traditional role as a grant-making agency. Administrator Rogoff highlighted the need for new transit funding, citing a National Transportation Safety Board  preliminary report indicating that the “condition of equipment and age of the rolling stock may have resulted” in the Washington D.C. crash earlier this year, which killed 9 and injured more than 70 passengers.

Aging equipment is a serious concern nationwide.  FTA’s recent rail modernization study surveyed the seven largest transit operators, which carry more than 80% of the nation’s transit passengers.  More than 33% of the assets held in these systems were in marginal condition or had already exceeded their useful life.  Servicing this system’s backlog of unmet needs would cost a staggering $50 billion, by the study’s estimates.

As the new surface transportation authorization process gets underway the Administration’s plans will no doubt provide fodder for vigorous debate.  Administrator Rogoff’s testimony seems to hint that new safety measures may be linked to FTA’s discretionary New Starts program.  In the meantime, look forward to a follow-on FTA study identifying safety critical infrastructure and industry wide “state of good repair” needs.  

Video of the hearing "Rail Modernization: Getting Transit Funding Back on Track," along with written statements from the heads of the Chicago Transit Authority, the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority, New Jersey Transit, and the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority are available from the Senate Banking Committee's website.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A recent survey conducted by KPMG International confirms what many in the infrastructure industry already knew: current infrastructure investment is insufficient to support economic growth and politics frequently influences infrastructure development in the United States.  In this global survey, KPMG surveyed 455 infrastructure executives, including 118 from the United States.

While much of the recent industry press has focused on the lack of available financing as the primary challenge to delivering infrastructure, a vast majority of the respondents indicated that governmental effectiveness and current economic conditions are bigger hurdles than available financing.  The respondents expressed specific concerns over what they viewed as an overly politicized process, changing public policy, and excessive government bureaucracy.  When asked how governmental agencies could enhance their effectiveness in delivering infrastructure, respondents suggested making infrastructure delivery less influenced by political considerations, increasing transparency in infrastructure spending, and expanding the use of public-private partnerships (PPPs). 

Recent examples of PPP projects played out in the political arena include the SH 121 project in Texas and the proposed long-term leases of the Pennsylvania Turnpike and Alligator Alley.  California, which had pioneered PPPs in the early 1990s, only recently overcame objections from various political stakeholders in the intervening years.  We are hopeful that California’s new legislation authorizing design-build and PPPs for Caltrans and regional transportation authorities is a step toward improved transportation infrastructure delivery.  Given the current administration’s focus on infrastructure, Congress and the administration may now act to address the long-term needs for a stable means of funding infrastructure development and maintenance, without the political roadblocks.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks