EXECUTIVE ORDER 13274
Minutes of Interagency Task Force Meeting
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
Conference Room W82-302

2:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.

October 2, 2007

I. Opening Remarks

Tyler Duvall, Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, opened the meeting by welcoming everyone and expressing his appreciation for everyone’s attendance. All those in attendance then introduced themselves. Mr. Duvall then stated that the Task Force’s work in the coming year will require partnerships among agencies and requested everyone’s support. He also noted that the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and other agencies are placing more focus on the relationship between congestion and the environment, and specifically the environmental benefits of reducing congestion. Mr. Duvall distributed a press release regarding the August announcement by USDOT Secretary Mary E. Peters that five metropolitan areas have been selected to participate in the Urban Partnerships Agreement program to fight traffic gridlock. After making these opening remarks, Mr. Duvall introduced the next speaker, David Horner.

II. Urban Partnership Agreements

David Horner, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, discussed the Urban Partnerships Agreement program. He first explained that USDOT has selected five jurisdictions to receive money from the program. He then discussed the various steps that USDOT went through to select these five jurisdictions.

The selection process began in December 2006, when USDOT placed a solicitation in the Federal Register asking jurisdictions to submit proposals for projects that included one of four elements to help solve congestion problems in metropolitan areas. These elements were: congestion pricing, bus rapid transit, telecommuting, and intelligent transportation systems. USDOT believes that the implementation of these four elements will lead to a reduction in congestion. In asking jurisdictions to submit proposals, USDOT encouraged the jurisdictions to consider undertaking solutions to congestion that are provocative, progressive, and at times even controversial. The goal was to give political leaders an incentive to try new things.

Mr. Horner went on to explain that USDOT received 26 applications by the deadline in March 2007. Sixteen of these applications proposed pricing demonstrations on varying scales, such as cordon pricing and arterial pricing. Mr. Horner explained that congestion pricing attempts to maintain free-flow conditions by setting a price in relation to the extent of demand for access to a particular transportation facility. He also stated that USDOT recognizes that it is critical for pricing projects to include transit components to accommodate any modal shift that results from the pricing of particular roadways or facilities.

After reviewing the 26 applications, USDOT selected nine applications and conducted interviews and visited with representatives from those jurisdictions. This included interviews with the proposers as well as local political leaders. After completing the interviews, USDOT then selected five jurisdictions to participate in the program: Minneapolis, Miami, New York City, San Francisco, and Seattle. The five jurisdictions were selected based on the technical merit of their proposals, the political readiness of the localities to adopt the proposed projects, and the value of the projects as national demonstrations. All five jurisdictions proposed some type of pricing project, which USDOT considers significant because it shows the willingness of local leaders to adopt tolling as a mechanism for reducing congestion.

Mr. Horner then briefly described the selected projects. In Minneapolis, Miami, and San Francisco, the projects will include the conversion of general-purpose lanes to priced lanes, and each project received between $63 and $159 million. In Miami, the project will include the conversion of 21 miles of Interstate 95 (I–95) from high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes to high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes. The project will also add a new lane to the roadway.  In New York, the proposed project includes the use of a cordon toll, similar to those being used in London and Stockholm. Mr. Horner noted that such a program would have enormous demonstration value, and therefore, USDOT provided $354 million for the project.

Now that the jurisdictions and projects have been selected, the Urban Partnerships program is in the implementation stage. Mr. Horner said that the projects will be up and running in the not-so-distant future, with all projects required to be implemented by 2009.  The Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Research and Innovative Technology Administration are among the offices within USDOT that have staff working on these five projects.

Paul Hoffman of the Department of Interior (DOI) asked whether the lanes with variable tolls will be monitored using smart technologies that would allow for dynamic tolling. Mr. Horner responded that in some cases, smart technologies will be used to determine the tolls in real time. In other cases, however, tolls will vary by time of day on a predetermined schedule.

As to whether these projects will have environmental benefits, Mr. Horner stated that Mayor Bloomberg in New York is marketing his cordon pricing project by emphasizing the environmental benefits that will accompany the reduction in congestion. These types of benefits raise some questions about what types of environmental analyses will be required to get these projects fully approved.

Mr. Duvall echoed Mr. Horner’s comments and referenced the HOT lanes planned for the Capital Beltway (I–495) in the Washington, DC, region. Mr. Duvall again requested the help of the Task Force in providing outreach regarding the Urban Partnerships program. He said that the help of the Task Force would be very important, even if none of the selected projects has yet been named a priority project under E.O. 13274. Mr. Duvall said that these projects are important to the policy direction of the United States, because we are entering a new era of highway finance.  He also announced that Mr. Horner would be available for future briefings for any of the respective Task Force agencies.

III. Corridors of the Future

James Ray, Acting Deputy and Chief Counsel at FHWA, spoke about interstate corridor congestion and the Corridors of the Future program. Mr. Ray explained that congestion is eroding the interstate system and is spilling into suburbia. It also is affecting just-in-time shipping and having negative effects on manufacturing, to the extent that some manufacturers and companies have explored moving out of congested areas because traffic is hurting their bottom lines. Because of these problems, FHWA saw a need to address congestion on roadways to ensure that supply chains work efficiently and effectively. This is how FHWA will move into the next era, which Mr. Ray termed the “performance era,” during which agencies will work to ensure the transportation system that is in place works efficiently. Mr. Ray noted that moving into this era will create a tidal wave of need, especially at the local level. For example, the State of Arizona expects its population to triple in coming years. This impending need calls for innovative solutions.

Mr. Ray explained that FHWA’s Corridors of the Future program seeks to unlock creativity and empower local governments by focusing federal funding on real needs, rather than gold-plating projects where there is little need in the first place.

To determine which localities will participate in Corridors of the Future, FHWA conducted a competition and received 38 applications—a significant number given that the program did not promise large amounts of money to the winners. Instead, FHWA believes that the large number of applications signifies that the transportation industry recognizes the problems caused by congestion on our Nation’s roadways.

Mr. Ray went on to explain that after receiving the applications, the Corridors of the Future program moved into its second phase, during which applicants were responsible for creating business plans. Based on these business plans, FHWA narrowed down the field of applicants from 38 to 14 and then to 6 winners. The selected corridors include:

• I–95 from Florida to the Canadian border;
• I–70 in Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and Ohio;
• I–15 in Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah;
• I–5 in California, Oregon, and Washington;
• I–10 from California to Florida; and
• I–69 from Texas to Michigan.

FHWA is now entering into negotiations with these six winners and will sign comprehensive development agreements with them. At this point, FHWA has only promised to provide credit assistance through the TIFIA program (Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 1998). FHWA also has promised all six winners that if they make it through the development agreement phrase, then their projects will become priority projects under the Executive Order. Mr. Duvall encouraged Task Force members to support this commitment.

Mr. Ray concluded his remarks by saying that the Corridors of the Future program will help reduce congestion, which will in turn ensure that the American economy continues to grow. Mr. Hoffman asked if anyone has evaluated the use of agreements with truckers to travel only at night or during off-peak hours, similar to what was done during the Olympics in Los Angeles. Mr. Ray responded that the closest thing we have to this today is the use of pricing on roads that provides an incentive for truckers to travel at off-peak times. Mr. Ray added that without pricing mechanisms, it is very hard to shift the trip times of truckers and other drivers. He also explained that many metropolitan areas are indeed looking at ways to get truckers off the road because they perceive trucks as the primary source of congestion; in reality, however, this is not true. In addition, Mr. Ray noted that when people are asked if they would prefer tolling or higher taxes to fund transportation projects, most people say they would prefer to pay tolls.

Following these remarks, Mr. Duvall announced that Mr. Ray also would be available for future briefings to any of the respective Task Force agencies.

IV. Agency, Workgroup, and Priority Project Updates

1. Resource Agency Updates

No specific updates were provided.

2. Integrated Planning Workgroup Update

Mr. Culp began his presentation by distributing a handout illustrating the current priorities and recent accomplishments of the Integrated Planning Work Group (IPWG). According to Culp and the handout, the Work Group is currently finalizing its new two-year work plan, which focuses on tiering, corridor and sub-area studies; eco-logical principles; pilot projects; and new planning regulations. The IPWG has assembled small groups of staff to help work on the group’s various projects. All of this is being done in conjunction with the other two work groups.

Regarding Eco-Logical, the IPWG is currently doing some additional outreach within USDOT, FHWA, and other agencies. As for the pilot grant program, Mr. Culp indicated that FHWA has successfully solicited grant proposals for demonstrations of integrated planning, better engagement, and ecosystem-level mitigation. FHWA is now preparing to begin negotiations with a select set of agencies that submitted proposals. The IPWG will assist with that effort. Regarding the new planning regulations, the IPWG will be doing continued outreach to spread the word about involving resource agencies in transportation planning.

3. Priority Project Update

Marlys Osterhues (FHWA) began her discussion by distributing a status report on the various milestones reached on several projects as well as revised project schedules since the Task Force last met in July 2007. Since the last Task Force meeting, two projects reached major milestones. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Connecticut Route 11 Extension was signed, as was the Final Supplemental EIS for the Georgia U.S. 411 Connector project. In addition, Ms. Osterhues explained that a critical referendum will be held in November in the area surrounding the Trinity Parkway in Texas. The outcome of this referendum will be a factor in the future of this project.

After hearing about the Trinity Parkway, Mr. Duvall noted that in the future, when communicating about projects, Task Force members should be more transparent when explaining the real sources of delay, because often times the actual cause is not related to environmental issues, as is being demonstrated in Texas. Mr. Duvall also explained that the Task Force should not feel that they need to keep projects on the priority list that are delayed or held up due to a lack of local consensus. Projects should be removed from the list if delays are not related to environmental issues, but instead are a result of political complications.

V. Report to the President

Ms. Osterhues began this discussion by distributing a revised schedule for the 2007 Report to the President. This schedule has some flexibility and is just a target. She noted that at this time, ICF is incorporating agency comments into the report. By the end of October, she anticipates that FHWA will distribute a print-ready version to the Task Force for review.

In conducting final reviews of the report, FHWA will follow the Secretary’s coordination process for final clearance, and members of the Task Force will be asked to usher the report through the appropriate channels at their agency. The deadline for final agency approvals is November 28, 2007. FHWA also will send the report to the Office of Management and Budget for their clearance. Final approval for the report will come from CEQ and the White House.

Ms. Osterhues noted that this is the first report since the implementation of SAFETEA-LU. Mr. Duvall commented that the Task Force may want to include a note in the report explaining that SAFETEA-LU made important changes to environmental streamlining, but SAFETEA-LU did not rewrite the environmental review process. Also, many people think SAFETEA-LU made one overall, sweeping change to the process, and this is not true. Mr. Duvall also thought it would be useful if this was noted in the report.

VI. Implementing Performance Measurement in Environmental Streamlining Survey II

Kreig Larson (FHWA) introduced Sameer Abraham of the Gallup Organization. Gallup recently completed an update of its 2003 survey and report on the success of environmental streamlining. Mr. Abraham presented results of the update.

The update focused on NEPA reviewers and managers at resource and transportation agencies.  The 2006 study included polling measures consistent with the 2003 study and was conducted using a measurement instrument that was customized for USDOT. Gallup has produced both national and regional results from the survey.

The 2006 study found that the gap in opinions between resource and transportation agencies had narrowed and that substantial improvements were being made across all categories. This means that more effective streamlining is taking place.  Although there are some apparent data inconsistencies for at least two regions that need to be investigated, the overall analysis suggests a positive trend in environmental streamlining of transportation projects. The study also found that respondents from resource agencies thought that improvements were happening faster than did respondents from transportation agencies. Many of these results are detailed in the handout distributed by Mr. Abraham and in the complete report, which is available on the Web.

Horst Greczmiel (CEQ) asked for clarification regarding FHWA’s plans to have Gallup conduct another analysis in 2008. Mr. Abraham said that the Task Force would be able to see comparable data that would help create a trend line. He said that although the data are sometimes contradictory, the Task Force should see a positive change at the national level.

Mr. Larson said FHWA and Gallup would develop a guide for how to look at the data so that Task Force members could investigate it themselves. He added that FHWA would be receptive to any suggestions on how to promote the findings of the study.

VII. FAA Reauthorization

Lynne Pickard (FAA) gave a presentation on FAA reauthorization. She explained that the Agency’s reauthorization bill is currently before Congress, noting that both the Senate and House bills contain similar environmental permitting and streamlining provisions. She noted that by the year 2025, there will be twice as much as air traffic in the skies as there is now. Therefore, now is the time to make a fundamental change in order to accommodate this growth.

Ms. Pickard also said that preliminary analysis indicates that the expected chokepoints in accommodating this growth will not necessarily be related to airspace. Unless we get smarter in managing environmental issues, the first chokepoints will be environmental issues, such as aviation noise, local air quality, climate change, energy use, and alternative fuels for aviation.

In 2000, FAA developed a report to Congress that discussed the available options for streamlining the environmental process for aviation projects. Ms. Pickard said FAA is now looking at new technologies to reduce environmental impacts and at ways to make aviation quieter, cleaner, and more energy-efficient. It is important that any retrofitting of airplanes begin in the very near future because fleet turnover is relatively slow. In addition, investments are being sought in research and development partnerships as a means to reduce environmental impacts. FAA is also pursuing Environmental Management Systems (EMS) and views them as critical as today’s safety management systems. The House version of the reauthorization bill contains provisions for EMSs.

To close her remarks, Ms. Pickard complimented Mr. Duvall on his participation in discussions about aviation-related environmental issues, and noted that there is no provision in the current bill regarding airlines and the Grand Canyon. 

VIII. Streamlining and Stewardship Successes

1. Minnesota Bridge Emergency Coordination

Fred Skaer, Director of FHWA’s Office of Project Development & Environmental Review, said the partnership on the I-35W Bridge Replacement Project was terrific. The I-35W Bridge over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis collapsed during rush hour on August 1, 2007. This month, construction will begin on a new bridge by way of a design-build contract. Mr. Skaer explained that the environmental piece of the project was complicated, requiring the involvement of numerous agencies and the need to obtain 16 State and local permits. Almost all of this was handled through simple communications, including meetings and telephone calls. FHWA did not have to request a single waiver for the project. Of note, FHWA formed an aesthetic workgroup with the U.S. National Park Service that will apply context-sensitive solutions to the design of the new bridge.

2. Interagency Review for Eco-Logical Solicitation

Carol Adkins (FHWA) thanked partner agencies who donated staff to review proposals received in response to the Eco-Logical grant solicitation (Integrating Transportation and Resource Planning to Develop Ecosystem Based Infrastructure Projects Grant). Ms. Adkins also announced that FHWA had partnered with EPA on a new book on highway weed maintenance. Copies of the book were made available to meeting participants.

3. Coordination with EPA and the Corps on Clean Water/ Rapanos

Carol Adkins said that FHWA held a webinar on August 9, 2008, on the enforcement of the Clean Water Act. The presentation was held in light of the joint guidance issued by EPA and ACE earlier this summer on jurisdiction over waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act. This guidance is based on the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the consolidated cases Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States (referred to as “Rapanos”). Ms. Adkins said there was a very high level of interest in the topic, with roughly 400 people watching the presentation. FHWA received numerous requests for encores of the presentation, and it will probably approach partner agencies for future assistance in repeating the webinar.

IX. Closing Remarks

Mr. Skaer asked if there were any other items to discuss. Seeing none, he thanked those present for attending and noted that December 4, 2007, is the tentative date of the next meeting of the Task Force.

The meeting adjourned.