The URL can be used to link to this page

270278 WHITE - CITV CLER � ��I:� PINK - FINANCE - ��f CANARV - DEPAR ENT G I TY OF SA I NT PAU L C011RCll BLUE - fv�IAYO File NO. � ' - il Resolution Presented By � Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul first became a focal point in a proposal for an Interstate Highway system in 1938 as a result of a Congressional Directive to the Bureau of Public Roads, to study and report on the feasibility and cost of joining highways running in a general direction from Eastern to Western portions of the United States; and WHEREAS, the Interstate 35E Corridor along Pleasant Avenue ha`s been proposed as the location for an arterial street or high- way since the early 1940's, and on October 31, 1945, the Saint Paul City Council adopted a resolution urging the construction of an Interstate Freeway on that route; and WHEREAS, on August 22, 1972, a lawsuit captioned Cit of Saint Paul et al. vs. Vol e et al. , was settled by stipulation erein t e _ o�n ss oner o ig ways agreed to halt construction and to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement on the project; and WH-EREAS, more than five years' time has elapsed since the stipulated settlement of said lawsuit, and throughout that time no Federal or State statute e�isted as an impediment to the completion of the Environmental Impact Statement called for in Paragraph 4 of that stipulation dated August 21, 1972; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul City Council and Gity Administration in June, 1975, commissioned a comprehensive, in-depth study of the alternative routes for I-35E in St. Paul, and the study entitled "Recomm�nded Position for the City of Saint Paul in the I-35E Issue in Saint Paul' was accepted and approved; and r COUNCILMEN Requested by Department of: Yeas � Nays Butler Hozza In Favor Hunt Levine __ Against BY Roedler Sylvester Tedesco Form Approved by City Attorney Adopted by Council: Date — Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY- sy, Approved by Mayor: Date Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council gy By WH17E - CITV CLERK COIlI1C11 `- PINK - FINANCE � CANARY - DEPARTMENT G I TY OF SA I NT PALT L �'��ry + �� BLUE - fAYOR File NO• . �T Council Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date Page 3. FURTHER RESOLVEDe that the Minnesota Legislature be requested to amend Minn. Sta'�. � 161.123 (3) which prohibits a physical connection on the proposed roadway and that the City of St. Paul make the following requests: l. That the Secretary of Transportation withdraw the portion of I-35E between West Seventh Street and I-94 from the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways under the provisions of 23 U.S. C. 103 (e) (4) and that those funds which were to be used for I-35E be reserved for a comparable trans- portation facility which will serve the purpose that I-35E was intended to serve in the Pleasant Avenue Corridor. 2. �hat the Governor of the�tate of Minnesota join in the request and jointly submit a formal request for the withdrawl of that porta.on of I-35E under the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 103 (e) (4) . 3. That the Transportation Advisory Board and the Metropolitan Council acting as responsible local officials in this metropolitan area be requested to concur in this request for withdrawal and substitution. COUNCILMEN Yeas Nay�s Requested by Department of: ��. Butler Hozza In Favor �'� Hunt Levine _�___ Against BY — Roedler ..�._ S ylvester Tedesco..� �C z,7 �977 Form pr ed by City Attorney Adopted ouncil Date • , Ce ied P� �s y C ncil Sejretar - B} V Appr v by Mayor: e pEC 2'9 �� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By — BY �BLISHED !�:P� 7 �9�� . �y ' ,�'. { '.�_ � (i I'1'1' O l:' ��1 I \'1 ��_1 T, T. �+a�s%+�� Ol''1'I(il: O1' '1'II1•' �I.\1"O1� vrasi pRc: F —_ °r--� :�. 3�I7 GITY fI:17.7. .�,.:. SAI\T I?1LTL, �II\\FSOTA �510`? (E31") 2nF3—•Z33:3 CsF.O1ZC;E LATI�tER MAYOR January 17, 1978 Governor Rudy Perpi.ch 130 State Capitol Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 Dear Governor Qerpich: • Enclosed is a copy of a resolution passed by the Saint Paul City Council on December 27, 1977. I am formally requesting that the State of Minnesota take the necessary steps to facilitate the City's intention of utilizing the withdrawal and substitution provisions as they pertain to the Pleasant Avenue Corridor. Sincerely, . � �� . Geo e Latimer Mayor Enclosure CC: James Harrington City Council City Clerk �� IT r = � � �� 7� C Y OF SAINT PAUL OFFICE OF THE CITY COIINCIL m� .e.. ■s■a�sae�e m�4i�e L.EONARD W. LEVINE Councilman M E M 0 R A N D U M To: Mike Sirian From: Councilman Leonard W. Levine, Chairman, City Development and Transportation Committee Date: January 24, 1978 On December 27, 1977, the City Council adopted Council File 270278 regarding the I-35E question. This resolution had been referred to the Council from the City Development and Transportation Committee. Please remove this item from the list of matters referred to committee. CITY HALL SEVENTH FLOOR SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 612/298-4473 22 � . Arnold E. Kempe �2�,�°�NOq, Minnesota District 67A (�f/�� House of Ramsey-Dakota Counties Committees: _ TaXes -�� =' Representatives Criminal Justice --- - Financial Institutions and Insurance Martin Olav Sabo,Speaker January 20, 1978 C� T �� f � City Clerk St. Paul City Council 386 City Hall RE: H.F. 544 St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 I-35E - Ramsey County Dear Members of the City Council: Yesterday, January 19, 1978, I moved that the above captioned bill be taken from the table and that a Conference Committee of three members of the House be appointed and that a conference with the Senate be requested to work out the differences between the House and Senate on the above captioned bill. That motion prevailed and the Speaker of the House appointed Representative Tomlinson, Osthoff and myself as the conferees of the House on this bill. I herewith request from the City Council it's position and request for legislation amending the so-called moratorium and restrictions imposed on the Pleasant Avenue Corridor, H.F. 1722, passed by the legislature in 1975. The City Council of St. Paul has apparently reached some tentative understanding with the Senate Ma.jority Leader in it's discussion and contacts with him concerning this matter. Please advise me immediately what specific changes the City Council desires concerning the existing limitations and restrictions in the Pleasant Avenue Corridor. Ma.y I hear from you immediately concerning this matter. Very truly yours, � Arnold E. Kempe AEK:mJJ cc: Bill Clapp, Pres. St. Paul Chamber of Commerce Tony DeZiel, St. Paul Trades and Labor Assembly 331 State Office Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 (612) 296-3806 .G� �A� One Signal Hills, St. Paul, Minnesota 55118 (612) 457-5585 ;U, �,l . � � . i . . .. . � . . . , .. . . ,. . .. . .. . . , . ,. x'.._ � 't - . . � . �. � . . . � .. � � z. �. � . . . .. .. . . . . . . . � . . . . ' �. ,�i � � . � . � � �i .-� . s . ' - � � � r' � . .� . . .. � . . �� ; .. ... � . . . . .. . �. 1 . ' � . . . � ki `�f�,. . . . ' . � . ' . ' ! . . �. . . . . .. � . � �.., " ��. . . . � , .. . � . ,. � , . .. . . . . . � . - . " .. _ . .. - ' �/� � .� • . � . . �� . . . . . �: . . /� � � . . • � ' � . � �; � � ... ... �� ..i/ i //�� j � � .� � � . , . . .. . . , , /% ��' � . • ,. _ � ` �� i�� ' � . � . _ , . . .iI � ... . . � , � , . . � .. � . A� . � ' � / ��` t . . . . ' " , , J � , - +' j � ' • � ; � i ' ' i ` ;� r a ; ` \ . , � ��'� � �� _ � i x. . f . �f ' � , { � . . , . ¢�A � , ; � �J; , _ , . ��i . . . . . r _ . . . . . .. �.. _ � � � j• ' • . �� \ •. ". �..� � . � . . . . � � , . � .� � . � � . . .. . . � ��' � i � � `��` � � � � . � � .. . . � � �� . . � � � . � . r - . � . ��- ... . . ., . � . . . . . . . � . �� . . , . . , ' . . _. . .. � � � • ., . � �� /��y� �� _ � ' . . � , � � � ..� � . � . �ii��. � .. � � � . . ��. . . . , ` . .. . . . i. . . . . . . . . � -. � . . . . . . . . e . . � .. . � .. . . 1 ._. r�� . . ., . . . . � . . . . i . . , ' . .. . . � � �Ilrl�"�M�3�#LiMl�rr� - ' , , � , �, � �� . '�R ��.'� �►�M iE. , � • � '� � �1��t�• L� ��'�, �+t illwii�All� � '!�'�� #M� � 1��.;�IM� �� '�► '� 69�'�' ir�l,�ti�i�1i*�arM�i� �� M�'iidrw��i�rr#`�► - �t ,#��rll�if� �!' #1r 111�,is„ � �� _ . . - , ,. #�. . , . � � - � <' � � �� . , '�� 1 � , , , , �y . , ,� - � ` -�:� , . , � � ' � ; � � � ;� � � � � ��/�� . � �� ' � . . . �� . _ . �'' _ , �� ! , � � �� , _ ` , , E . 4 ' ' �! ',a . . E ` ' , , �i : ,� . . _ , �, �'l . � . . . . ��.�. ' . . .; �,,,. . . � � � . . � . �`: . . . . � . . . . . . . . - . .. . _ ' .. �.. �. . . . � / . . .. . � . . � . \ . 4 1, . . .�� . .. . . . .. . . � . .. � . , .. . ' . ' . � / �' �} ' . . . . . . . . . . � . � . � . . ' . . . . ' ' . . . . . � ., _ - . :1 ' r - ; � . � . . � . . .. , , , . , �, , � . ' . � � . � . . . " . ' . . - . � . . . .. �;:; ' . . . . � . . _ .. .� . , . . . � . . ' � . . . � � . � .. - .. � . .. � _ .. . .. . . . � '.. . , `.� . . . � . . , � . : . . . . _ . .,� . . � �.� j - . , . . . . . . . .,, . • t.. �. . _ � . . . . . . ,' � � . � � � . . � . � . . � • . � . . . - � �., � -. . " � . . , _'\ . � . i. . � . . . . . ,.: . .... , . . . .: �. . . . . . ..�.. �, - - . . � �. . . . - .. .. .. . . . � . . � . . ,. . � � ' . . . - , � . . . � . .. l �� . ` .. . � � �� .. � � � . . . � � / � �- � �. . � . . � ' . . � . . . . ! . � - �. � . , - . � ' .. , . � � �.. �. . . � � . , � �. . � � ' � . . . . . . . , ' � , . t. . '. � � � � . � � . .i � ' .. -. . . . . . � .. � . . .. .�:'.. TABLE OF CONTE�JTS INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND 1-2 WITHDRAWAL AND SUBSTITUTION MECHANISMS 3-8 Section 103(e ) ( 2 ) , Title 23 , U. S . C. 3 Section 103(e ) (4) , Title 23 , U. S . C. 5 - Payback Requirements 8 ' CONSIDERATIONS FOR INITIATING AND PROCESSING AN 8-14 INTERSTATE WITHDRAWAL AND SUBSTITUTION ACTION Fiscal Implications 8 Local Involvement 10 Disposition of Mileage 11 • Funding of Substitute Projects 12 Substitute Project Selection 13 Payback of Federal-Aid Interstate Funds 14 WITHDRAWAL ACTIONS IN OTHER STATES 15-18 APPENDIX A Draft Federal Regulations APPENDIX B File Notes I NTRODUCTI OPJ/BACKGROU�JD Throughout the country , numerous segments of Interstate System highways in various stages of development have , for one reason or another, met with strong opposition to their completion, In recognition of this fact , Congress has authorized the deletion of Interstate segments not considered essential to a unified and . connected system , and the substitution of other Interstate routes , non-Interstate highways andfor transit facilities as deemed . necessary by appropriate local and State officials . The laws that govern Interstate withdrawals and substitutions are contained in Title 23 of the U. S . Code , Sections 103(e ) (2 ) and 103(e ) (4) . Section 103(e ) (2 ) originally appeared in Title 23 ' U. S . C. in 1968 and authorized the withdrawal of any Interstate System segment and the substitution or addition of other Inter- state segments . The 1973 Federal Aid Highway Act added Section 103(e ) ( 4) authorizing the withdrawal of Urban segments of the Interstate System and some sections extending into rural areas and the substitution of mass transit projects . This section was amended by the 1976 Federal Aid Highway Act to permit the substitution of highway projects or mass transit projects or both. While the 1976 Federal Aid Highway Act was enacted on May 5 , 1976 , the Code of Federal Regulations has not been revised to reflect , the changes contained in that legislation. This report is an attempt to put forth the most up-to-date and authoritative information available at this time , It should be recognized, however, that the material contained herein is based upon "Pre- liminary Draft Regulations" and upon consultation with Federal Highway and Urban Mass Transportation Administration staff people and with officials of the states of Massachusetts and Colorado and as such is subject to change when final regulations are promulgated. Notes of ineetings with Federal and State officials are contained in Appendix "B" . J .. 2 .. WITHDRAWAL APdD SUBSTITUTIOP� I�ECHAfJISMS The procedures to be followed in processing withdrawal and substitution actions under Sections 103(e ) (2 ) and 103(e ) (4) of Title 23 U. S . C. are somewhat similar but there are �ignifi- cant differences . Appendix "A" of this report contains copies of "Preliminary Draft Regulations ." Subpart "C" applies to Section 103(e ) (2 ) , "Interstate Withdrawals and Substitutions" while Subpart "D" applies to Section 103(e ) (4) , "Withdrawal ' of Interstate Segments and Substitution of Public Mass Transit or Highway Projects or Both, " Again , these are "Draft" regulations ; however, it is expected that any actions initiated prior to issu- ance of final regulations would be processed essentially as prescribed in these draft regulations . Federal Highway Adminis- tration officials contacted were optimistic that final regulations would be promulgated soon and that there would be no drastic changes in Subparts "C" and "D" . Section 103(e ) ( 2 ) Actions authorized under this section of Title 23 U.S . C. are confined to withdrawals and substitutions on the Interstate System only . Subpart "C" of Appendix "A" contains detailed procedures for implementation of Section 103(e ) ( 21 ; however , the general consideration� in pursuing an action under this provision are as follows : ' 1. Authorizes withdrawal of any Interstate segment and substitution of another. This is not confined to urban areas . 2 . The request is made to the Federal Highway Administrator by the State highway department: - 3 - . after consultation with the local governments concerned , and , in urbanized areas , the responsible local officials of that area. . and if the segment has a planned transit component only after consultation with the affected local transit operating officials . 3. If the State desires to request a substitute segment , the - request must accompany the withdrawal request, 4, Withdrawal request may be combined with a withdrawal request 3 made under Section 103(e ) ( 4) , 5 , A determination must be made that the withdrawn segment is not essential to completion of a unified and connected Interstate System. 6 . The State may request use of the mileage withdrawn or of the additional Interstate mileage authorized under this section , or b o th. 7. The State must give assurance that the substitute or additional mileage will be constructed as part of the Interstate System and that it will not be withdrawn later under the provision of 23 U.S .C. 103(e ) ( 4) . 8. The Federal cost of the mileage approved will not exceed the Federal cost of the withdrawn segment increased or . decreased as determined by the Federal Highway Administration based on changes in construction costs of the withdrawn � route . In Minnesota' s case , the increase or decrease will be based on the changes in construction costs occurring between the base cost year for the 1972 cost estimate and the date of approval of withdrawal. - 4 - 9 . If the cost of the substitute or additional mileage exceeds the funds available from the withdrawn segment , the request may be approved if: . The State Highway Department agrees to provide the excess cost with other than Federal Aid Interstate funds , or . The Federal Highway Administrator agrees to provide the excess cost from excess funds availabe from other substi- . tute Interstate segments in the same state or other states . l0a Withdrawal under provisions of this section does not result in � a reduction of the unobligated apportionment for the Interstate System in that State . Section 103(e ) ( 4) The geaeral considerations for pursuing an action under the provisions of this section are : 1. Permits the withdrawal of Interstate segments in urbanized areas , or serving urbanized areas or connecting urbanized areas within a State and the substitution of public mass transit or highway projects or both which serve the urbanized areas or non-urbanized corridors between urbanized areas from which the withdrawal was made . 2 . "Substitute highway project" means any undertaking for highway construction , which may encompass phases of work including preliminary engineering , right-of-way , and actual construction on any of the Federal-aid systems . described in 23 U.S . C. 103 and which is eligible for Federal financial assistance . A Project may also include the construction of exclusive or preferential bus lanes , - 5 - highway traffic control devices , bus passenger loading areas and facilities , and fringe and corridor facilities to serve bus and other public mass transportation passengers . 3e "Substitute non-highway public mass transit project" means any undertaking to develop or improve public mass transit facilities or equipment. A project must � be included in and related to a program for the . development or improvement of an urban mass transit system which includes either the construction of fixed rail facilities , or the purchase of passenger equipment , or both. 4. A request for withdrawal must be submitted jointly by the Governor and local governments concerned and, for those segments within urbanized areas , with the concurrence of responsible local officials . 5 . A withdrawal under this section may be combined with a withdrawal request under Section 103(e ) ( 2 ) . 6 . To obtain approval it must be demonstrated that the withdrawn segment is not essential to the completion of a unified and connected Interstate System. 7 . Funds available for substitute projects will be based on the Federal share of the cost of the withdrawn segment as shown in the latest cost estimate approved by � Congress , increased or decreased based on changes in construction costs of the withdrawn segment occurring between the base cost year of the latest estimate and - 6 - May 5 , 1976 , or the date of approval of each substitute project , whichever is later, 8. Authorization of funds created shall remain available until expended. 9 . Effective the date of approval of an Interstate segment , a one time reduction of the unobligated apportionments for the Interstate System of the State receiving approval for withdrawal will be made in the proportion that the . Federal share of the cost of the withdrawn segment bears to the Federal share of total cost of all uncompleted Interstate highways in the State . 10 . Mileage withdrawn shall be available for redesignation in any State . A request for redesignation within the State requesting withdrawal may be made at time of the withdrawal request. 11. Substitute projects in or serving urbanized areas shall be based on an urban transportation planning process and shall be selected by the responsible local officials of the urbanized area. 12 . A proposal for one or more substitute projects may be combined with projects utilizing other Federal funds available . ' 13 . Both mass transit and highway substitute projects will be . financed from the General Fund, not the Highway Trust Fund. Approval of substitute projects can be given only to the extent that appropriation acts have provided the authority to obligate funds . - 7 - Payback Requirements Regulations applying to the disposition of Federal-aid highway funds obligated and expended upon Federal-aid routes or segments that are withdrawn under the provision of Title 23 are in the" initial stage of development with no indicati-on of when• •they might �e finalized. Section 103 of Title 23 ; U. S . C. states only that in the event a . withdrawal of approval is accepted, the State shall not be required to refund to the Highway Trust Fund any sums previously paid to the State for the withdrawn route as long as said sums were applied to a transportation project permissi- ble under Title 23. Indications are that the rules will interpret this to mean that a transportation project of some type must be completed utilizing the right-of-way and construction items of - the withdrawn segmento If no transportation project is com- pleted, the State may be obligated to repay costs of tangible items such as real property and construction items . The cost of intangible items such as preliminary engineering , appraisals , relocation costs , demolition , etc. , may very well be forgiven . In the absence of rules , it may be possible to negotiate the payback obligations for any specific segment. - 8 - CONSIDERATIOiVS FOR I��ITIATIPJG APJD PROCESSI��G A�J IPJTERSTATE WITHDRAWAL AND SUBSTITUTION ACTIO�J FISCAL IMPLICATIONS Section 103(e ) (2 ) . Action under 103(e ) ( 2 ) does not affect unobligated balance . � . Federal share for substitute segment is based on , 1972 I C E for withdrawn segment adjusted for cost change to May 5 , 1976 or date of withdrawal , which- ever is later. Inflationary factors could erode buying power if there is a substantial delay between date of withdrawal and date of construction of a substitute project. . If the cost of a substitute project exceeds funds available from the withdrawn segment , the State must agree to make up the difference using other than Interstate funds . Section 103(e ) ( 4) . At time of withdrawal , the State ' s unobligated balance is reduced. . Segment will be dropped from future I C E which will reduce future apportionments . , Federal share of substitute funding will be based on Federal share of. cost of withdrawn segment adjusted for change between the base cost year for the latest ICE and the date of approval of substitute projects . - 9 - . Budget authority for all substitute projects , both highway and transit , transfers to UMTA at time of withdrawal approval. Federal funding then comes from the General Fund and no funds can be obligated for a project until the related budget authority has been provided through an appropriations act . � . The Congressional budget process requires that accurate cost figures must be submitted to the House Budget Committee by March 15 preceding the fiscal year for which the appropriation is requested. To meet this schedule , requests for funding for substitute projects should be submitted to UMTA about one year in advance of the fiscal year for which the funding is requested. LOCAL INVOLVEMENT Section 103(e ) (2 ) . Local units of government must be consulted. . In urbanized areas , local responsible officials must be consulted, . If a transit component exists in withdrawn corridor, local transit interests must be consulted. . Development of substitute projects would follow � normal development process . Section 103(e ) (4) . Local units of government must join along with the Governor in the request to withdraw . - 10 - . Local responsible officials must endorse the action if segment is withdrawn from an urbanized are a. , Substitute projects will be selected by the responsible local officials . . Development of substitute projects would follow normal development process . DISPOSITION OF MILEAGE Section 103(e ) ( 2 ) . Mileage of withdrawn segment is available for designation of a substitute segment if the State desires ; otherwise , it is available to any other State . . Additional mileage for substitute segments or additions can be requested from the 500 mile reserve mileage authorized in Section 103(e ) ( 2 ) . . Request for substitution must accompany request for withdrawal, . The State must give assurance that if approved the substitute or additional project will be constructed as part of the Interstate System and that the mileage � will not be withdrawn later under Section 103(e ) (4) . Section 103(e ) (4) . Mileage withdrawn shall be available for redesignation in any State under 23 USC 103(e ) ( 1) without cost limitation. - 11 - Withdrawal request may contain a request for redesignation of the available mileage ; however , it will not be given preferential consideration . FUNDING OF SUBSTITUTE PROJECTS Section 103(e ) ( 2 ) . Projects will be funded as any regular Interstate System project to the extent that Federal funds , are available from the withdrawn segment as determined at time of withdrawal approvale . Costs in excess of funds available from withdrawn segment will be paid by State from other than Interstate funds . . Funds come from Highway Trust Fund. . Local matching funds will come from State funds . , Section 103(e ) (4) . The Federal share of any substitute non-highway public mass transit project will be determined under Section 4 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 196� , as amended. . The Federal share of any substitute highway project will be as determined for the appropriate program � in accordance with 23 U. S . C. 120 . , Authorizations of funds created by the withdrawal of an Interstate route shall remain available until expended. - 12 - . Local matching funds must be provided as determined for the appropriate Federal program. SUBSTITUTE PROJECT SELECTION Section 103(e ) ( 2 ) . Substitute projects are selected by the State Highway Department with consultation with the local governments concerned and with responsible ' local officials . , Projects approved by Federal Highway Administrator, Section 103(e ) (4) . Substitute projects are selected by responsible local officialsa . Project selection must be based on an urban transportation planning process, and projects must be included in the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP ) . . Projects must serve the urbanized area from which the segment was withdrawn, . Applications for substitute non-highway public mass transit projects are submitted to the Urban Mass Transportation Administrator by the Governor. • , Applications for substitute highway projects are submitted to the Federal Highway Administrator by the Governor, - 13 - PAYBACK OF FEDERAL-AID INTERSTATE FUNDS Payback requirements under either Section 103(e ) ( 2 ) or (e ) ( 4) will probably be the same . The State will be responsible for any costs involved and it will not simply be a reduction of the Federal funds available from the withdrawn segment. , The expenditure for intangible items such as preliminary engineering , appraisals , relocation costs , building removal , . etc. , will probably be forgiven, The Federal Highway Administration will probably require reimbursement for expenditures for tangible items such as real estate and construction items placed for the project unless these items are incorporated into a transportation project, • - 14 - WITHDRAWAL ACTIOPdS � I� OTHER STATES To date , nine states have taken advantage of the Section 103(e )2 , Howard-Cramer substitution provisions . These are : - BASE CURRENT STATE ROUTES LOCATION MILES COSTS COSTS Calif. 80 ,280 ,480 San Francisco 10 . 2 $ 303, 6 704. 2 N.J. 278 Elizabeth 7. 0 89 . 0 185 .6 . N.Y. 78 ,478, 878 ,295 N .Y. City 14. 4 395 . 1 765 . 7 R. I . 895 Providence 12 . 2 120 . 9 193. 0 Mass . 95 Boston 2 . 6 68, 3 109 . 0 � Ga. 485 Atlanta 5 . 5 64. 8 103. 4 Md. 70S ,95 D. C. area 6 . 7 116 . 1 185 . 2 Conn. 86 ,291 Hartford 3. 9 36 .6 58. 3 La. 410 New Orleans 34. 1 274.6 435e0 TOTALS 96 . 6 $1,469 . 0 $2 , 739 . 4 Similarly , six states have availed themselves of the 103(e )4 transit and highway substitution provisions . These are : BASE CURRENT STATE ROUTES LOCATION MILES COSTS COSTS Mass . 95 ,695 Boston 23. 3 603. 2 961. 9 Pa. 695 Philadelphia 7 . 8 148. 2 236 , 4 Md. 70S D. C. area 1. 8 77.2 101. 5 D. C. 70S ,95 D. C. 5 . 4 304, 3 400 . 0 Conn. 86 ,291 Hartford 13. 5 189 . 3 248. 8 Ore . 80N Portland 5 . 1 130 . 2 171. 2 ,--- TOTALS 56 . 9 $1, 452. 4 $2 ,119 . 8 NOTES : (1) All costs are in Federal funds ( $ millions ) . ( 2 ) The "Base Costs" column represents the costs of the withdrawn routes as they were reported in the Estimate applicable to the specific action. ( 3) The "Current Costs" column represents the base costs � adjusted to the date of enactment of the 1976 act for all actions listed, except Louisiana which is adjusted through 9/30/76 . - 15 - State of the Art August 1, 1977 In the specific case of Massachusetts -- the decision to substitute was precipitated by neighborhood and environmental group pressures in the early 1970 ' s , demanding that freeways not traverse their particular geographic area. In addition to this and legislative mandates prohibiting construction , Federal requirements such as NEPA, 4(f) , ' relocation and the �lean Air Act mitigated against the completion of these facilities . Participants in the 3-C planning process overwhelmingly supported development of a publ-ic transit system rather than additional freeway construction within the Boston region. ' This led to the request in 1974 for withdrawal of three segments of Interstate ; a 10 .1 mile segment of I-95 South , a 11. 4 mile segment of I-95 North and a 4, 4 mile segment of I-695 (the Inner Belt) , for a total of 25 , 9 miles . Massachusetts in consultation with local governments concerned found these segments to be non-essential to a unified and connected Interstate System in the Boston region. Massachusetts , also , affirmed that it did not intend to construct toll roads in corridors served by the withdrawn segment . Massachusetts ' withdrawal action combines 23 USC 103(e ) (2 ) , 103(e ) ( 4) and Section 139 provisions . Under 103(e ) (2 ) , two separate highway substitution projects were requested : 1) An - 16 - extension of I-495 , a new 14 mile segment at an estimated cost of $62 million and 2 ) upgrading of an existing 14. 5 mile segment of the S .E . expressway at a cost of $65 million, Withdrawn money allocated ( $33. 8 million for I-495 extension and $34. 5 million for S .E . expressway) and mileage only covered portions of these substitute routes . Additional mileage " required would come under Section 139 , but would not involve Howard-Cramer substitute mileage or money. Under the 103(e ) (4) provisions , Massachusetts withdrew segments totaling $603 .2 million to be used for non-highway public mass-transit projects in the Boston region. Candidate projects were subsequently selected from comprehensive lists of projects which comprised the regions Transit Development Program. Even though to date $115 million has been spent , the balance remaining has increased to close to a billion dollars because of escalator provisions in the law. Although no formal rules or regulations have been issued on payback , Massachusetts has appeared to have worked out a fair and equitable proposal with FHWA. Negotiations are still ongoing , but interpretations to date seem positive , - In Colorado , public and political opposition to highways and a strong interest in public transit precipitated a compre- hensive restudy of the transportation needs of the Denver metropolitan area. Considerable controversy existed over Interstate Route 470 , the southwest ring route from I-25 south - 17 - of Denver� to I-70 west, This planning effort , characterized by an extensive public involvement program wherein over 60 public meetings with local units of government , interest groups and the general public were held and where court actions were necessary to establish jurisdictional authority , resulted in the decision to withdraw the 26 . 4 mile interestate segment. " A formal request to withdraw the segment has now been made under the provisions of 23 U.S .C. 103(e ) (4) . It is anticipated that a portion of the estimated $156 million federal share of the cost of the withdrawn segment will be applied to the construction of a parkway facility in the I-470 corridor. In anticipation of the approval of the withdrawal request , Colorado has requested the appropriation of $12 million for substitute projects for Fiscal Year 1978. The recently enacted appropriations act does include this budget authority. - 18 - APPE�JDIX A DRAFT FEDERAL REGULATIONS • . . . .si ; �_ ��. , , � �_ ��. �� • , . DRAFT ��,��`�r �� HI1G-13 � 4/ZS/77 Subpart A--General 476.2 Definitions. (a) Except as othezwise provided, tezms defined in 23 U.S.C. 201(a) are used in this Part as so defined. � (b) The follawing terms, where used in the regulations in this Part, have the follawing a�eaning-- � "Interstate segnents" means any designated, toll-free raute, or � portion thereof, of the Interstate Systeqn. "Local goverrmtents concerned" means local units of general purpose _ government under State Zaw within whose jurisdiction the Inters.tate segment lies, or i.s to be withdrawn, added, or substituted. "Responsible Iocal officials" means: (a) in urbanized areas, � � principal elected officials of general purpose local governments acting through the Metrapolitan Planning Organization designated by the Governor in accordance with Part 450, Subpart A of this title and (b) in niral areas and urban areas not within any urbaniz�d area, principal elected officials of general purpose local l governments. "Substitute highway praj ect'• means any w�dertaking for highway � construction, which may encompass phases of work including preliminary engineering, right-of-way, and actual construction, . . , � . � 2 individually or any combination thereof, on any of the Federal-aid . syste�ns described in 23 U.S.C. 103 and which is eligible for Federal � financial assistance under Title 23, U.S.C. A substitute highway project also may include the construction of exclusive or ; preferential bus Ianes, highway traffic control devices, bus ' passenger Ioading areas and facilities (includ�ng shelters) , and fringe and corridor parking facilities to serve bus and other - public mass trans-portation passengen. "Substitute nonhighway public mass transit project" means arry � undertaking to deveiop or i�rove public mass transit facilities or equipment. A project nn�st be included in and related to a program for the develapment or improvement of an urban public mass .` transit system which includes either the constructian of fixed rail facilities, or the purchase of passenger equipme�nt, or both. � Passenger equipment includes buses, fixed rail rolling stock, and other transoortation uipment. "Base Cost Year" for the latest Intentate System cost estimate approved by Congress shall be the calendar year specified in the Interstate Cost Estimate manual for that estimate. For examQle, the base cost year for the 1972 Estimate is 1970. � "Cansultatian" means direct notification of the major substantive aspects of a proposed request and reasonable apport�imity for written comnent prior to sub�nittal of the request for approval. 3 "Concurrence" means written agreement which is current 'and binding on the local governments concerned or the Metropolitan Planning Qrganization and which addresses the specific proposal being submitted for approval. • Subpart B--Reserved Subpart C--Interstate System � Modi.fications Under 23 U.S.C. 103(e) (2) (Fbward-Cramer Amendment) 47b.200 Purpose. The purpose of the regulations in this subpart is to implement - 23 U.S.C. 103(e) (2) , which permits withdrawal of a segment fro�n the Interstate System and the substitution or addition of other Interstate segments. 476.202 Applicability. (a) Except as provided in paragraph @) of this section, the regulations . in this subpart shall apply: (1) To Interstate segments selected and apprwed under Titie Z3, United States Code. - (2) To aIl system changes after the effective date of these regulations where a substitute or additianal route exceeds the Iength of the withdrawn raute. In cases where the length � of the substitute or additional route is less than the length 4 of the withdrawn route, the system change will be governed _ by the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 103(f). (b) The regulations in this subpart shall not apply: (1) To Interstate segments desi�ated under 23 U.S.C. 134(a). - � (Z) To a segrnent removed fran the Interstate System prior ta January 2, 1968, except those routes renoved on August 30, 1965, for the puipose of designating an alternative route. (3) To aziy route or segment re�noved from the Interstate System after January 2, 1968, exce�pt where such re�ovals were specifically identified as an action imder 23 U.S.C. 103(e) (2). ` 476.204 Withdrawal request. - - (a) A request to withdraw an Interstate segment frrnn the Interstate : Systen: shall be submitted to the Fed.eral Highway Administrator by the State highway department, Provided, That: . (1) The request shall be submitted only after consultativn w�th_, the local goverrn�ents concerned, and, in wrbanized areas, the responsible local officials of that area. . (Z) If the segment has a present or planned transit camponent, the request shall be submitted only after consultation with � the affected local transit aperating officials. S (b) When a State desires to request a substitute segment for a . segJnent withdrawn in that State under this subpart, the �uest must accompany the request for withdrawal under this subpart. (c� The request far withdrawal shall include the following: (1) A statement that the segxaent will not beco� a part of the - Interstate System and a statement of the basis for this . determination, including: (i) Reasons why the segme�nt �is not essential to the co�rcpletion of a unified and connected Interstate System (includinQ corisideration of urban mute� � �ecessary for metropolitan trarLSportation) ; and �' (ii) Reasons why it will not be comgleted as a part of the . _ Interstate System, or ca�ot become a fw�cctional part . of the Interstate System; (2) A detailed statement of mileage and cost of the segment to be withdrawn as includ.ed in the I972 Interstate System Cast . Estimate or, if the route was not inc3uded in the 1972 Cost - Estimate, in the last cost estimate approved by Congress _ � . prior to the 1972 Cost Estimate in which the route was included.. 6 (3) An assurance that a toll road will not be constructed in the traffic corridor which woutd be senred by the seg�nent. � (4) A statement that the request is filed pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 103(.e) (Z) . � (5) Evidence of consultation efforts described in 476.2Q4(a). (d) The withdrawa.l request under this subpart may be caabined with a withdrawal request u�der Subpart D provided the mileage and costs to be withdrawn under each subpart are clearly identified. � . 476.206 Withdrawal approval by the Federal Highway Administrator. . (a) The Federal Highway Achninistrator may approve the withdrawal of an � Interstate segment after ccrosidering the impact of the withdrawal on national defense needs if: (1) He determines that it is not essential to ccm�pletion of a umified and connected Interstate System (including consid,er- ation of urban rautes necessary for metrvpolitan transpartation) ; (2) He deterniines that the segment will not become a part of the Interstate System, including designatioRr tmder 23 U.S.C. I39(a) ;� and - (3) The requirements of 476.204 are met. � (b) The payback of Federal-aid Interstate fwids expended on a route - segment withdrawn under this subpart shall be governed by the provisions of Subpart E of these re l�u ations. . . 7 476.208 Request for substitute or additianal segment. , (a) A State highway de�partrnent may request use of the mileage withdrawn tmder 476.204, or the addit�onal Interstate mileage authorized 23 U.S.C. 103(e� (2)� or both, for a substitute or a.dditional . segrnent. If the substitute or additional segment is to be Iocated � in an urbanized area, the request must be submitted by the State . highway department after consultation with the Iocal governme�ts � concerned and respansible local officials of that urbanized area. . . If the substitute or additional segment is to be Iocated. in a non-urbanized area, the request �st be submitted. by the State highway department after consultation with the States and local : governments concerned. ; (b) The State highway department n�ust give assurance that, if approved as part of the Interstate System, the substitute or additional mileage will be constructed as part of the Interstate Syste9m and the basis for the assurance. The assurance must also include a statement that the State understands that, if approved, the mileage may not be withdra�an at a later date under the provisians of 23 U.S.C. 103(e) (4) . (c) The request shall include a statesnent of miles and an estunate of the�ultimate Federal cost of the substitute or additional segment. � 8 476.210 Approval of substitute and additiona.I segments by the Federal High�+ray Administrator. � In considering requests for substitute or additional Interstate seg�ents, the Federal Highway Administrator shall: (a) Give due regard to Interstate highway type needs on a natianwide basis; and (b) Give preference to: (1) Segments in States in which he has withdrawn appraval of other segments umder this subpart; and � (2) The extension of segments which terminate within nnmicipalities � served by a single Interstate route, so as to prwide service entirely through those m�micipalities. � (c) The agproval of a substitute or additianal segment by the Federal Highway Administrator will include a statement tha.t the mileage mist be constructed as part of the Intentate System and may not be withdrawn at a later date �der the provisions of 23 U.S.C. I03(e) (4) 476.Z12 Applicability of Title 23, United States Code. . A11 the provisio�s of Title 23, U.S.C., applicable to the Interstate System shall be applicable to substitute or additional mileage except � that the amount of Federal fimds available for the substitute or additional mileage shall be camQuted in accardance with 476.214. 9 476.214 Determination of available funding. � • (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, the Federal cost of the mileage appraved shall not exceed the Federal cost of the withdrawn route as included in the I972 Intersta.te System cost estimate or, if the cost of the withdrawn route was not • included in the 1972 cost est3mate, the cost of the withdrawn route as included in the Iast Interstate Systesa cost estitnate before the 1972 cost estim3te which was approved by Congress, increased or decreased, as determined by the Federal Highway Administrator, based on changes in constniction costs of the withdrawn route. In , the case of a withdrawn route, the cost of which was not included . in the 1972 cost estimate but was included in an earlier Interstate System cost estimate, the increase or decrease will be based vn the ` changes in construction costs occurring between the base cost year of the last cost estimate which included the costs of the withdrawn route ard May 5, 1976. In the case of a withdrawn route, the cost ef which was included in the 1972 cost estimate, the increase or decrease will be based on the changes in cvnstruction costs occurring between the base cost year of the 19T2 cost estimate and May S, 1976, or the date of approval of�the withdrawal, whichever date is later. The changes in constructiori costs will be ccm�puted . . � on the basi.s of the Composite Index shown in the quarterly publicativn "Frice Trends for Federal-Aid Highway Construction" � � � prepared by the Federal Highwa.y Administration. For purposes of adjustments, the Ccm�osite Index for the second calendar quarter . _ _ ,� ' . 10 r of 1976, or for the calendar quarter within which the approval da.te occurs, whichever is Iater, will be used in computing the � change in constniction costs. (b) If the Federal cost of the withdrawn mileage exceeds the estimated ultimate Federal cost of the substitute or additional mi.leage requested by a State highway c3epartment, the Federal - Highway A�ninistrator may make the excess functs available far other substitute or additional Intentate segments in the same State or in other States. (c) If the estimated ultimate Federal cost of the substitute or additional mileage requested exceeds the peimissible cost, the Federal Highway Adriinistrator may approve the request Provided, ; - : - That: (1) The State highway department agrees to provide the excess cost with other than Federal-aid Interstate funds; or (2) The Federal Highway Administrator agrees to provide the � excess cost from funds available under paragraph (b) of this section. . � (d) For mileage which was designated under this subpart and subsequently withdrawn and red.esignated under this subpart, the amount of Federal � fimds available for the redesignated route shall not exceed the Federal cost of the route initially withdrawn as sho�n in the I972 cost estimate, increased or decreased, as determined by the Federal Highway Administrator, based on changes in constniction costs occurring between the base cost year of the 1972 cost estimate and the da.te of approval of the subsequent withdrawal. � II . _ Subpart D--Withdrawal of Interstate Segments and Substitution of Public Mass Transit or Iiighway Projects or . Both 476.3Q0 Purpose. The puipose of the regulations in this subpart is to prescribe policies . and procedures for implementatio�n-of 23 U.S.C. 103(e) (4), which permits � the withdrawal of Interstate System segments and the substitutian of • � . public mass.transit or highway projects or both. 476.302 Applicability. � (a) Except as provided in paragraph @) of this section, an Interstate segment at any stage of development may be withdrawn, and public mass transit or highway projects or both substituted if: ` (1� The segment is within an urbanized area; or (2). The segment has portions within an urbanized area and has portivns outside the urbanized area but in close proxunity to the area. (3) The segznent co�ects urbanized areas within a State. (b) The regulations in this subpart shall not apply to: � �1) A segment removed from the Interstate System prior to , August 13, 1973; �2� A segment added to the Interstate System after May 5,. Ig76, � . under the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 103(e) (2) ; or (3) Interstat� segments desionated imder 23 U.S.C. 139(a) . • I2 476.304 Withdrawal �equest. ' (a) A request to withdraw an Interstate segment within a State under this subpart shall be submitted jointiv bv th� ��a*�� i�''t__ _ _ - governments concerned and, for those segments within urbanized - areas, �#h the concurrence of responsible local officials. The � withdrawal request shall be submitted to the Federal Highway Administrator and the Urban Mass Transportation A�ministrator, . through the Federal Highway Administrator. (b) Joint submittal may be accomplished by concurrence of the local goverrments concerned in the withdrawal requested by the Governor. While unanimous local action is not required, the withdrawal request is expected to have substantial support. � - (c) The request for withdrawal shall include the following: (1) A statement that the request is filed pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 103(e) (4); (2) Reasons why the segme�nt is not essential to the campletion of a unified and cormected Interstate System, , (� A detailed statement of mi.leage and cost of the segment to � be withdrawn as included in the Iatest Interstate Cost Estimate approved by Congress. 13 (4) An assurance that a toll road will not be constru�ted in the traffic corridor which would be served by the segment. (d) A withdrawal request ua�der this subpart may be combined with a witi�drawal request i.a�der subpart C provided that the mileage and . costs to be withdrawn �der each subpart are clearly identi.fied. 476.30b Withdrawal approval. (a) The Federal Highway Ad�ninistrator and the Urban Mass Transpor.tatiom. Administrator may approve the withdrawal of an Interstate seg�ent zmder the provision� of this subpart after considering t'�e inmact of t�ie withdrawal on natianal d.efense neects i£: . (1) The requirements of 476.304 are met; and (2) They deteimine that the segment is not essential to caamletian f of a unified and connected Interstate Syst�m. (b) When the withdrawal of an Interstate segment is appraved under paragraph (a} of this sectian, an amoimt not to exceed the Federal share of the cost to cmnplete the withdrawn segment as shown in the latest Interstate System cost estimate approved by Congress is . authorized for substitute projects. The amount authorized will be increased or decreased, as determined by the Federal Highway A�ninistrator, based on changes in construction costs of the withdrawn route occurring between the base cast year of the latest _ cost estimate approved hy Congress which included the costs of the . � withdrawn raute and May 5, 1976, or the date of approval of each � substitute project, whichever is later. The changes in constructian 14 costs will be camputed on the basis o: the Composite Index shown in the quarterly publication "Price Trends for Federal-Aid � Highway Construction" pre�pared by the Federal Highway Administrat�on. For purposes of cost adjustments, the Cmr�posite Index for the second calendar quarter of 1976, or for the calendar quarter within which the appraval of the substitute prajects occurs, • whichever is later, will be used in�ramputing the change in constniction costs. � (c) Authorizations of fimds cTeated by the withdrawa.l of an Interstate �oute under 23 U.S.C. 103(e) (4) shall remain avai.Iable Lmtil expended. (d) Effective the date of approval of the withdrawal of an Interstate t segment, the unobligated apportionments for the Interstate Systan of th� State receiving the approval will be reduced in the pra�partion that the Federal share of the cost of the withdrawn segnent bears to the Federal share of:. the total cost of aIl Interstate routes in the State as reported in the latest Interstate System cost estimate approved by Congress. (e) Mileage withdrawn und.er the provisians of this subpart sha11 be available for redesignation in any State �der 23 U.S.C. 103�(1} without cost limitation, except that any portion of the withdrawn • mileage which was originally designated out af the mileage reserve provided under 23 U.S.C. I03(e) (Z) , shall be returned to that reserve. � � 15 (f) The withdrawal request may contain a request for redesigna.tion of the mileage that will become available upon approval of the withdrawal request. The redesignation request will be evaluated �along with all other requests for Interstate mileage; however, - it wili not be given preferential consideration. (g) The payback of Federal-aid Interstate funds expended on a route . segment withdrawn wzder this subpart shall be governed by the provisions af Subpart E of these regulations. 476.308 Proposals for substitute public mass transit and highway projects. (a) The prvposed substitute projects must serve the urbanized area or cannecting nonurbanized area corridor or both from which the Interstate segment was withdrawn. `� (b) Substitute projects in or serving urbanized areas shall be based � on an urban transportation planning process in accordance with 23 CFR Part 450, Subpart A and shall be selected by the responsible local officials of the urbanized area in accordance with 23 CFR Part 450, Subpart C. Substitute prajects Iocated outside • the urbanized area but serving the urbanized area shall also fiave the concurrence of the responsible local officials of the jurisdiction in which the project is Iocated. - {�) Substitute projects in or serving the nonurbanized area corridor shall be selected by the responsible Iocal officials of the jurisdictian in which the project is located. (d) Applications for substitute nonhighway public mass transit projects shall .be develaped either by the principal elected officials of .- I6 - general purpose local imits of government in consultation with local transit operating officials or by local transit bperating officials. Substitute highway projects shall be develaped in � accordance with the policies and procedures established for the � Federal-aid highway system of which they will be a part. Substitute hi�y �raiects nesd z�ot avnear in the State's Federal aid prot�ram described in 23 CFR Part 630, Sub1oart A. (e) Applications for substitute nonhighway public mass transit projects shall be submitted to the Urban Mass Transportation Administ-rator by the Governor. Requests for authorization to proceed with substitute highway projects shall be submitted to : the Federa.l Highway Administrator by the Governor. ; 476.310 Combined proposal. � . A praposal for ane or more substitute projects may be cambined with� projects utilizing other Federal funds available inciuding but not limited to financial assistance a�ailable tmder either the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 as amended or 23 U.S.C. I04. Only the funds available from a withdrawal under this subpart are constrained by the limiting amount described in 476.306(b} . 476.312 A�ministrator's review and approval of substitute projects. (a) The Urban Mass Transportation Administrator shall review substitute nonhigha�ay public mass transit projects and the Federal Highway Administrator shall review substitute highway projects to detezmine that: _ -... .. . 17 . �1) The proposed projects serve the urbanized area or connecting nonurbanized area corridor or both fram which the Interstate segment was withdrawn. (2) The Federal share of the costs af the proposed projects, which - is to be provided wzder this sub�part by virture of the ; withdrawal of an Interstate segtnent, does not exceed. the : Federal share of the cost of the withdrawn segment, as determined in 476.306(b). � (3) Approval of substitute proiects can be given only to th_e_ extent that appropriation acts have provided the authoriLy to obliAate the funds within a fiscal year. , � (b) For substitute nonhighway public ma.ss transit projects, the appraval of the plans, specification, and estimates of a project, or azry phase thereof, shall be deemed to occur on the date the Urban Mass Transportatian Ac�ministrator approves the substitute pmj ect or phase thereof in accordance with the IA�ITA Fxternal Operating Manual (UMTA Order 1000.2, dated August 22, 1972.) (c) Substitute highway projects will be approved and fimds obligated by the Federal Highway Administrator in accordance with policies � � and procedures established for the Federal-aid highway program. (d) Approval of a substitute project or phase thereof obligates the _ United States to pay its proportional share of the cost of the proj ect or phase thereof out_�� the genera��mds in the__ Treasury. _ A • 18 476.314 Federal share of substitute proiects. f (a) The Federal share of a nonhighway public mass transit project � or phase thereof is deterntined imder the provisions of - section 4 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of I964, as : ; , . . ; a�nended. (b) The Federal shase of a highway project or phase thereof is ��' determined in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 120. ; 'i . APPE�JD I X B FI LE P�OTES ' HiniL' v• a•ua�a�uvvasa Mn/DOT-Bureau of Policy & Planning � DEPARTMENT O f f ic� /1�1 emorandum Room 815 TO . File � DATE: ' FROM . Robert J. McDonald PHONE: Richard A. Elasky . SUBJECT: Interstate Substitution Washington, D.C. and Boston, Massachusetts The purpose of visiting Federal and State officials in these cities ' was to solicit information to assist us in determining what role Minnesota should play in Interstate substitution processes, to get �the most current "state of the art" and obtain resource material to guide us if we enter the substitution process. The three major goverr�nental entities that were visited were: 1) U.S. DOT in Washington, D.C. ; L. A. Staron of FHWA, Interstate Reports Bureau and Sam Rea, Jr. of UMTA, Office of Transit Assistance . 2) Massachusetts Diviaion Office of FHWA, Norm VanNess, Division Engineer � 3) Coc�onwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Public Works, George M. Joseph, Director, Capitol Expenditures Program Office � The Washington people were chosen to speak to because of their being considered expert in Interstate substitution and their involvement in the writfng of proposed pertinent rules and regulations. The Massachusetts people have the benefit of being one of the first States to successfully request and have approved an Interstate ' , . . substation. We desired a sharing of advice and suggestions based on their experience. It should be mentioned that everyone we contacted was most cooperative and helpful. , 1'E�►e following is a brief synopsis of our conversations: . � Washington,� DiC. Reason for the delay in issuing regulatiions (since 1976 Federal Aid Highway Act) is simply lack of manpower--no issuance date could be predicted. � , Fi2e • . . - McDonald/Elasky 7/28/77 � _ page 2 WashingCon, D.C. (cont.) ' � , There is substantial evidence that a withdrawal would be approved � if there are no opposing factions; if all governmental units involved are in agreement. � � If support (unanimous) can be s,hown, UMTA would consider budget appropriation request. . Appropriation request should be made as aoon as possible--Fall of 1977, if considering work for 1979. ' Need resolutians from Local government (Mpls.) , MPO (M.C.) , State � (governor) . � Under e(4), withdrawal and project selection are separate processes-- do not need to be tied. Under e(2) as proposed, actions (withdrawal and project selection) � are concurrent. • Non-essentiality based on non-continuity Appropriations request should only be for monies expected to be . expended in any one Fiscal Year. Substitution dollars are like UMTA, Sec, S funds, in that there is no lapse feature. In justification for withdrawal, discuss nature of controversy. Under e(2), if substitute route is longer, then withdrawn route � (i.e., Northtown). We need additional mileage from Haward-Cramer (S00 Mile bank, of which only approximately 50 to 60 miles are left) besides withdrawn mileage. , Cost, however, is still limited to withdrawn segment, based on 1972 � ICE inflated to date of withdrawal. Minnesota could apply for mileage available for redesignation fram withdrawals--goes in hopper with other candidates for priority - selection-�-chances slim. Lapsing of Interstate monies is no real detriment to State in [hat � - naneq still has to be made available to complete system. Future legislation will increase emphasis on completion of defined Interstate system. . . File McDonald/Elasky � 7/28/77 . page 3 Washington, D.C. (cont.) Projects need not be defined for appropriations request--just need estimate. Substitute projects (highway and. transit) don't have to be in "105" program, but have to be in TIP (annual element).� � � Under e(4), mileage withdrawn is available for redesignation (not available to same state in '73 Act, but changed in '75 Act) as part of 42,500 mile limit--nationally, they are overdrawn now--chances ' slim for redesignation. IInder Sec. 139, a primary route built to freeway standards could potentially be desigriated as Interstate, if continuity can be shown--but no additional Interstate monies are available. An approved withdrawal is not necessary for appropriations. � R�equest for appropriations--governor or commissioner to Brock Adams Under urban-transit transfers tMTA grant provisions are followed. Fringe parking--eligible for urban funding: Minneapolis has 5 locations approved; LMTA is financing R/W acquisition and • pre-engineering; FHWA is financing construction. • UMTA control; planning--Chicago; grant approval--Washington, D.C. In withdrawal action, money reduced from Int. balance is not redistributed to other states--just dropped. payback provisions are still in air; intangible cost (pre-engineering, relocation assistance, etc.), probably will be forgiven; tangible cost (R/W, improvements, etc.) would be paid back by option of, proceeds of public sale, fair market value appraisal, or full Federal payback. , Boston similar to 335--multiple use proposal payback separate fram substitute funding=-we can obligate entire . amount--accomplish payback under other te�rms, if required. Substitute projects have to be on system as deffned in Sec. 103. Select tennini carefully--monies can be increased by including connections. � � , File � - . McDonald/Elasky 7/28/77 . page 4 Washington, D.C. (cont.) " � , �onnecticut went e(2), e(4), in Hartford; Georgia most recent e(2). Contacts: � � � Sam Rea, Jr. , UMTA Office of�Transit (202) 472-2435 Wash., D.C. Assistance . I.. A. Staron FAWA Int. Reports Bureau (202) 426-0404 •Wash., D.C. D. J. Mitchell UMTA Office of Transit � . , (202) 426-2788 Wash., D.C. Assistance ' ' � Don Martilla FHWA Int. Report Bureau (202) 426-0404 Wash., D.C. ' Boston, Massachusetts F.p.W.A. Division Office � Boston's substitution was a combined e(2), e(4) process. Provided over $600 million initially. Mast of corridor will be used for transit. � Co�issioner--in Massachusetts--can transfer R/W to other public units of government. . Massachusetts will payback on parcels outside corridor based on � appraisal and historic value. Southwest corridor was slum corridor--values did not increase. On some R/W items costa are still going into accrued unbilled account. Some relocation and miscellaneous R/W activities are still going on even after substitution. � . FHWA still� participating in demolition costs, court awards,� etc. . A $3 1/2 million transportation study had been performed in Boston � . prior to requesting withdrawal--philosophy was no more highways � within ring--fortify transit--study �ay have been delaying tactic to give decision makers more time. Various reasons for requesting withdrawal, e.g. ,� under NEPA freeways couldn't be placed through public lands. - • File , . _ • McDonald/Elasky _ 7/28/77 PBge S Bostot� (cont.) . Transit element wasn�t detailed fn request; prior to '76 Act submitted program to UMTA, drawdown by FHWA; after '76 Act, UMTA controls, drawdown by them. Many transit projects have been developed subsequently to�with- drawal. State toying with idea of using substitute money for highways. •` Fringe garcels could be used for buffer zones, aesthetic improve- ments, noise--would take out a payback status. . �History in Boston: Feb. '70--Moratorium on freeways; Nov. '72-- Decision to withdraw; March '74--Application; May '74--Approved; Transit drawdown--$14 million--June '74. MPO in Boston controlled by State--nonelective or appointed-- conglomerate of administrative state office heads. Massachusetts takes in approximately $200 million/year in user revenues, but not spent on transportation projects--Funds appro- priated and transportation bonds for projects: Massachusetts spent $40 million in corridor, but is only facing a $3 1/2 million payback. � Massachusetts has worked out S year payback plan. � Structure cost would probably be forgiven if used. Substitute money should be able to be used for any regular DOT projects. • - Nighway to transit substitution will probably sell better. � " Couid consider commuter rail, park and ride, fringe parking for proposals. Good�contacts in Ma.ssachusetts--Bob Curry, Assistant to the Secretary; . George Joseph, Federal Aid Engineer; Colorado--Joe Sicardi ?, Morris Reinhardt. . . Co�nonwealth of Massachusetts � � Withdrawal worth $671 million in I972; $603 million of e(4), $67 of � e(2)--now is approaching value of a billion dollars because of inflation. � - File • � ' McDonald/Elasky - �/28/77 page 6 Co�alth of Mass. (cont.) Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority--quasi/public agency--employees . � not civil service--head of agency appointed by Governor--79 commun- ities have representatives on commission--representation based on boazding--operates in deficit--approximately $100 million/year. I•95 extension from inner ring deleted--passed through wealthy comaunity (Milton)--environmental crisis--Blanding Turtle-- . endangered species. ' . �` Roxbury--Watts of Boston , �.Cambridge--Home of Harvard, MIT, Alan Altschuler who led anti- highway group became first Secretary of Transportation in 1973. Voorhees--consultant had multi-million dollar contract for transportation study preceeding substitution. JRTC--Joint Regional Transportation Co�nittee. No statutory pow�r, only advisory. ' TIP is A-95 doc�mmentation in Boston. Transit substitution money is appropriated by UMTA on an annual need basis. . • MBTA (Mass. Bay Transit Authority) controls requests for funds through FHWA, Division Office and UMTA, Washington--Metro Planning Organi- zation (MPO) must review. Altschuler and Mannheim responsible for Federally legislated 3-C planning process--now regret--has introduced too much delay. MPO consists of Secretary of Transportation, Conanissioner of - Department of Public T�Iorks, Commissioner of Port Authority, . Cotmaissioner of MBTA, Advisory Committee, and the Metro Area Planning ' Commission. It is dominated and controlled by the State. � l�ffiTA--has lev y suthority For operation cost, not capital improvements-- � a percentage of cigarette tax goes for capital outlay for transit-- � they have $475 million authority for boading. Former dedicated highway trust fund was changed on Dec. 5, 1974, to � allow use on transit--7 1/2C/gallon to July 1975; now 8 1/2�/gallon, 1G of this goes to Massachusetts' Transportation Fund along with � racing revenues and city levy for operating subsidies. . `� . � File . ' � < •` McDonald/Elasky 7/28/77 . �. page 7 Canmonwealth of Mass. (cont.) � � . 'Operations (salaries, etc.) and maintenance of highways come out of . highway fund--Department of Public Safety (motor vehicle) is supported by highway fund--State Police--85% out of highways-- Metropolitan District Commissioner (water, parks, etc.)--60% out of ' highway revenues--Civil Service,--30'J'. out of highway revenues. George Joseph develops accelerated highwaq program for 2-year period-- includes Federal funds expected--broken down by Interstate and other � budgets--legislature can appropriate for specific�projects, however. , Gas tax: ls - Operating expenditure MBTA deficit � 1� • Cities and towns $25 million/year ' ' • � 3C - Debt service account (principle and interest on . hand) � 3 1/2G - Mafntenance + motor vehicle, etc. Counties not recognized as political authority. Massachusetts has 30,000 miles of road; 3,000 miles State highway� � They have developed draft of an agreement with FHWA on payback-- pbilosophy is generally that public use R/W should be forgiven. , Massachusetts has over 350 towns they deal with--Joseph says its not cumbersome. . . T'hey will provide package of material to us. . � Note: Monday, 7/18/77 Arrived Washington, D.C. Tuesday, 7/19/77 Metgs. Washington � � Wednesday, 7/ZO/77 Boston-Federal T'hursday, 7/21/77 Boston-State Contact: George M. Joseph . " Commonwealth of Massachusetts , � Department of Public Works � � Phone: (617) 72Z-4800 . � ' . . . . � `a.a w -- �,��2`78 �.�,=��,��=�°, ... , � r.��. ��,� :�� . �#n�Q o� J17ixc�t e�o�a SENATE NICHOLAS D. COLEMAN tENATOR 65TN DISTRICT March 15, 1976 MAJORITY LEADER Mr. W. H. Clapp Chairman Ilrive 35 Clapp-Thomssen Co. ' 4th � Wabasha St. Paul, Mn. 55101 Dear Bill: I was extremely surprised at the tone of your March lOth �etter. W u with the Chamber of mmerce representatives it , �eemed to me that we were in general a�reement that, No. l, any environmental im act statement woul ta e o construction season and . 2 environmental statement wa d, S irec s at an environmenta impact staternent be completed I do not at all unaerstana your dismay, I think that you are getting caught up in the confusion between a study and lifting the moratorium on the freeway. I think a freeway • would be a disaster for the qual.ity of life in the city. The time to stop it is now. A parkway would give us the transportation corridor we need and the jobs we need without the harm of a freeway. � I am sorry to say I completely disagrc�e wi.th the feeling a freeway would not intensify our problems. Finally, tl�e_ hiehwav commissioner • ceemG Ga isfie� that the bill permits the study, that feder.al money is available for match �nd that we shoul get on with it. � It seems to me that was our mutual �o�:il when we la�t met. Sincer�elx, � ' , � .''� > ;. .� .� NICHOLAS D. COLEMAN � Senate Atajority Leader NDC:sc STATE CApITOL ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA SIIISS 612•296•4196 � '�'r