7.5 Highway 212 Update Report-
Transportation Coalition
1p outhwest Corridor ------------------------ - - - - --
;:;:::.::......:...:
1......
:.. :- ...
Cail to.Llyd�r <::: < > ...::.:;;.::::.
. :....:::.::::
ll
introduc#ion ::.::;....
ltl
Legisiat��e Update
N; ISCUSSIOR
of Proposedrtterra for the
'1 road Feasibility Study......
A. Memo {�# Un;derstandrng
B .. criteria foc Selection ::.....:.....
G Proposed Cooperative Agreement
R' ...Sched 'I ..:.::.. ......
:: >: > >:::: >:; > >:<_ >: > »: ;:::::;..111...: ><0.d
r « < »:
oza �rr�er�t< >< > > >`: » > >'< >` > > >< >: >« <: > ><: »::
r
T T
B:
T.. r-
T
3 N e
.�.. N m
i ^
tt
O�
Q
a
0
y
Q
O
N
u �
N
I
�L
coo
s
O U P
O
t� � � co o
a
V
U U U
0 ZZ
i
G N N N
F
r r �
wo
F
W es +
•
a e
C �
'
c O x C)
U
� D�
co W
tt
O�
Q
a
A
O
3
d
t7
t
y
Q
O
t
>
Q
u �
C
= •
u h
U
u
s
v
O
a
A
O
3
d
t7
u �
n > u
u
� Q
Cy3 �� � � OD � �•
_ u
° o n - u C es >.
O
C — rr U
: . Gp • y
v °U
S
y
2
O
O
u
Q
C
= •
T
ou
a. U
s
v
O
a C
i
i
F
C C
u G
F
L�LI U
•
a e
V a
•
u �
•
W g
u �
n > u
u
� Q
Cy3 �� � � OD � �•
_ u
° o n - u C es >.
O
C — rr U
: . Gp • y
v °U
t
T N
T �
a,
3
Y
H
Y
c
N
u
a
a
t
t
N
U
' - c
u
U
u � c y
.y W
� V
U
t�z U
S
2
`a
a >�
C C
u G
L�LI U
a e
t
T N
T �
a,
3
Y
H
Y
c
N
u
a
a
t
t
N
U
' - c
u
U
u � c y
.y W
� V
U
t�z U
' SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION COALITION
470 Pillsbury Center
' Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337 -9300
May 13, 1994
' BY MESSENGER
'
Bob Zauner
Craig Meyn
VP- Marketing
Ed Kraemer & Sons, Inc.
Hughes Transportation
1020 West Cliff Road
'
Suite 940
One Appletree Square
Burnsville, MN 55337
Minneapolis, MN 55425
Dick Zehring
Piper Jaffray Plaza
Richard Beckman
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1014
HNTB
St. Paul, MN 55101
3400 West 66th Street
'
Minneapolis, MN 55435
Bill Crawford
Barton - Aschman Associates
111 Third Avenue South
Suite 305
Minneapolis, MN 55401
'
RE: Toll Road Feasibility Study For T.H. 212
Our File LN400 -51
'
Gentlemen:
I am enclosing to each of
you materials which will be discussed at
'
the Southwest Corridor Transportation
Coalition meeting on Tuesday,
May 17, 1994 beginning at
8:00 a.m. at the Eden Prairie City Hall
(Heritage Room).
The principal purposes of
the study are to:
' (1) Assist the local units of government in evaluating the
potential viability of T.H. 212 as a tollway;
(2) Provide a preliminary base of information ' for potential
developers of the project, should this "stage one" study
suggest the desireability of continuing further with the
approach; and
' (3) Analyze the prospects for funding of T.H. 212 by
traditional "non tollway" methods.
RJL70056
LY4
Lif100 -51
comments before or after the meeting.
I hope that you already had received notice of the meeting so that '
you are able to attend. If not, we would appreciate any input
which you are able to provide. We anticipate that the toll studies
steering committee will be having another meeting within the next '
couple of weeks. I intend to notify you of that meeting so that
you can participate at that time, in any event.
Thank you for your participation in the process. I
Very truly '
Robert J. alit ion President '
and Chaska Council Member
RJL:dh '
cc: Toll Steering Committee Distribution List
PJL70056
LY400 -51
May 13, 1994
Page Two
'
Our discussion will also include structuring of the local steering
committee for managing the study and the possibility of an
alternate arrangement under which a single consultant/ candidate
,
developer- operator would be selected and given exclusive
negotiating rights for a period of time (e.g., 18 months) and asked
to "package a proposal" for consideration by MNDot. The latter
'
idea has been advanced by one of you candidate developer- operators.
However, I am not yet aware of the extent to which this would be
acceptable to MNDot or the local units of government. They may
well believe that such an approach would be more appropriate for a
'
stage two, should there be sufficient support for going to stage
two after completion of stage one of the analysis.
,
I would appreciate your review of these materials in advance of our
meeting of May 17 so that you can comment on the form at that time.
If you are not able to attend that meeting please send me your
,
comments before or after the meeting.
I hope that you already had received notice of the meeting so that '
you are able to attend. If not, we would appreciate any input
which you are able to provide. We anticipate that the toll studies
steering committee will be having another meeting within the next '
couple of weeks. I intend to notify you of that meeting so that
you can participate at that time, in any event.
Thank you for your participation in the process. I
Very truly '
Robert J. alit ion President '
and Chaska Council Member
RJL:dh '
cc: Toll Steering Committee Distribution List
PJL70056
LY400 -51
This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING embodies the understanding of the repre-
sentatives of the two counties and three municipalities through which the
proposed Y.H. 212 Corridor passes.
Unless current funding sources are substantially - increased, it is conceiv-
able that construction of the proposed T.N. 212 may be delayed for 10 to 20
years. Recent changes in federal and state law now permit financing of the
construction and operation of trunk highways as toll ways. Any toll -
facility to be constructed in the T.H. 212 Corridor would require the
support and approval of the local governments represented in this MEMO-
RANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING. Additional information is.needed in order for
these units of government to make reasonable determinations as to their
support for a toll facility.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn /DOT) has agreed to fund up
to $75,000 for the preparation of a preliminary feasibility study for a
potential toll facility in order to determine under what conditions such a
toll facility might be feasible and to provide a discussion vehicle for the
local units of government. The City of Chaska.has agreed to be the lead
contracting agency for such a study and intends to enter into an agreement
with Mn /DOT in regard to the funding and conduct of the study. It is
intended that a consulting firm to perform the study will be retained by
the City of Chaska through a Request For Proposals process. The local
governments represented below recognize that it is appropriate and
necessary to establish a Steering Committee to provide oversight to the
consultant's work In order that the scope of the study meets the
information needs of these local governments.
MH' -13 -19 4 14 :08 FROM HENN CTY PUBLIC WORKS TO
93379310
P.02
raj
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
'
FOR
PERFORKANCE OF A TOLL ROAD FEASIBILITY STUDY
REPORT
FOR THE T.H. 212 CORRIDOR
This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING embodies the understanding of the repre-
sentatives of the two counties and three municipalities through which the
proposed Y.H. 212 Corridor passes.
Unless current funding sources are substantially - increased, it is conceiv-
able that construction of the proposed T.N. 212 may be delayed for 10 to 20
years. Recent changes in federal and state law now permit financing of the
construction and operation of trunk highways as toll ways. Any toll -
facility to be constructed in the T.H. 212 Corridor would require the
support and approval of the local governments represented in this MEMO-
RANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING. Additional information is.needed in order for
these units of government to make reasonable determinations as to their
support for a toll facility.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn /DOT) has agreed to fund up
to $75,000 for the preparation of a preliminary feasibility study for a
potential toll facility in order to determine under what conditions such a
toll facility might be feasible and to provide a discussion vehicle for the
local units of government. The City of Chaska.has agreed to be the lead
contracting agency for such a study and intends to enter into an agreement
with Mn /DOT in regard to the funding and conduct of the study. It is
intended that a consulting firm to perform the study will be retained by
the City of Chaska through a Request For Proposals process. The local
governments represented below recognize that it is appropriate and
necessary to establish a Steering Committee to provide oversight to the
consultant's work In order that the scope of the study meets the
information needs of these local governments.
1r -, 3- 17'::4 14 t 0 - to
i RAM ri&4-4 CT Y FuBL I C WORKS TO 733753 i 7 r , d3
The Steering Committee will consist of two representatives of each local
unit of government; and one representative each from Mn /DOT and from the ,
Southwest Metro Transit Commission. The functions of the Steering
Committee will include but not be limited to the following: '
• Approve the Request For Proposals;
• Participate in a consultant selection process and select the
consultant to be retained for the study; '
• Review and approve the scope of services to be performed by the '
consultant as part of their contract with the City of Chaska;
• Review and comment on the consultant's work during the study
process; and
• Review and comment on the draft feasibility study report. I
It is understood that each of the agencies' participation on the Steering ,
Committee is for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of a
feasibility report which will be of value to those agencies in determining '
whether they support further consideration of a toll facility concept.
Participation, review and comments by Steering Committee representatives '
shall not be considered the official comment of the .individual agency.
14:09 FROM HENN CTY PUBLIC WORKS
TO
93379310 P.04
COUNIY OF HENNEPIN
By:_
Date:
COUNTY OF CARVER
By :_
Date:
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
By :_
Date:
CITY OF CHAMASSEN
By :_
Date:
CITY OF CHASKA
By :_
Date:
MINNESOTA DEPARTNEMT OF TRANSPORTATION
By:_
Date:
SOUTHW ;T METRO TRANSIT COMMISSION
By•_
Dane:
TOTAL P.04
Congressman Jim Ramstad Congressman David Minge '
322 Cannon Office Building 1508 Longworth Building
Washington, DC 20515 Washington DC 20515
Attn: Morgan Brown Attn: Corey Davison '
RE: T.H. 212 Demonstration Grant Application
Our File LN400 -51 '
Dear Congressmen Ramstad and Congressment Minge:
Thank you both for all of your efforts on behalf of the '
Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition in support of our
demonstration grant application for 1994. Morgan Brown called us '
on May 12 with word of the first cut from the public works
subcommittee which resulted in our remaining in the bill with the
proposal of $3 million in demonstration grant funds. Naturally, we
know that the process is far from over at this stage. However, it '
is heartening to be still in contention despite such significant
competition.
At Morgan's request, t I am enclosing to each of you a bound '
copy of the application ("criteria document"), as you submitted it
to the Transportation Subcommittee of the House Appropriations '
Committee earlier this month (including appendices). I am also
submitting to each of you an unbound copy of the report without
appendices which will be easier for you to copy should the need
arise to do so. '
Thank you again for all of your help. Let me know if you have
any further questions or comments. '
Very my our
1
Robert J. Lindall
RJL:dh '
cc: Coalition Board
=70056
IM400 -51 '
HOLMES & GRAVEN
CHARTERED
Attorneys at Law
470 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota SS402
ROBERT C. LONG
ROBERT A. At-sop
(612) 337 -9300
LAURA
RONALD H. BATTY
A .P PORT
BARBARA
STEPHEN J. BUBUL
Facsimile (612) 337.9310
JAMES M. MMN
JOHN B. DEAN
]Acres J. HOME N. 7R
,
MARY G. DOBBINS
M. . WERTHEM
STEPANiE N. GALEY
BO M P L RIXs
ConINz A. HEINE
NTER
GARY P. WINTER
GARY
JAMES S. HOLMES
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL
DAVID J. KENNEDY
May 13 , 19 9 4
Y
DAVID L CRAVEN (1929.1991)
'
JOHN R. LARSON
OF ODIINSEI.
WELLINGTON H. LAW
ROBERT C. AV N
CHARLES L LEFEVERE
ROBERT L DAVIDSON
JOHN M. LEFEVRE, JR
BY EXPIRE S S MAIL
T. JAY SALMEN
' ROBERT
J. LINDALL
Congressman Jim Ramstad Congressman David Minge '
322 Cannon Office Building 1508 Longworth Building
Washington, DC 20515 Washington DC 20515
Attn: Morgan Brown Attn: Corey Davison '
RE: T.H. 212 Demonstration Grant Application
Our File LN400 -51 '
Dear Congressmen Ramstad and Congressment Minge:
Thank you both for all of your efforts on behalf of the '
Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition in support of our
demonstration grant application for 1994. Morgan Brown called us '
on May 12 with word of the first cut from the public works
subcommittee which resulted in our remaining in the bill with the
proposal of $3 million in demonstration grant funds. Naturally, we
know that the process is far from over at this stage. However, it '
is heartening to be still in contention despite such significant
competition.
At Morgan's request, t I am enclosing to each of you a bound '
copy of the application ("criteria document"), as you submitted it
to the Transportation Subcommittee of the House Appropriations '
Committee earlier this month (including appendices). I am also
submitting to each of you an unbound copy of the report without
appendices which will be easier for you to copy should the need
arise to do so. '
Thank you again for all of your help. Let me know if you have
any further questions or comments. '
Very my our
1
Robert J. Lindall
RJL:dh '
cc: Coalition Board
=70056
IM400 -51 '
OOYERNMiNT A I;OMMtROE
Ad TRANSPORTATION
1 A Conuinittee's Long Journey
Toward a Highway Bill
.Leaders consider political and economic factors
to winnow out the winners from the losers
-D
L eade rs of the House Public
Works Ccmmittes have giv.
on their blessing to more
than 320 road end transit projects
sought by fellow lawmakers, using
a mixture of economics and poli.
tics to se parate the winning re-
quests from the losing ones.
The piojecti are contained in
HR 4385, a bill introduced May 11
by the chairtnen and ranking
members of the committee and its
Surface Trarisportat.ion Sub-
committee. Tht. bill — the panel's
first atterapt since 1991 to direct
money to apeellSe highway, bridge, bus
and rail projects — woes voice vote
approval from the Surface Transpor-
tation Subcommittee on May 12.
The bill's stated purpose Is to desig.
nate elements of the new National High-
way Systera, a rn ►twork of roadways most
Important to commercial traffic and
tourism. I- also would make technical
correction<.. to the 1991 surface trarapor-
tation law and alter a handful of trans-
portation polieim, such as a motorcycle
helmet mEmdatr (Box, P. 12056)
The driving political force behind the
bill, however, is its promise of speeial
road projects fot members' dietricta. The
projects ars a l:e > • element in the deal
struck by Public Works Chairman Nor-
man Y. Knita, D.Ce f., and Tranepor.
tation Appropriations Subcommittee
Chairman Bob Carr, D- Mich., to settle a
turf battle. (Chart, p. 1204)
That battle erupted lot June. when
the approprialom proposed to take more
than $30<t million out of the Highway
Trust Fund.orfSroad rojecte and three
studies. The Public or Committees,
whicb bad not authorized the projects for
the amounts ptopoeed, argued suacess-
f4iy that the appropriators were violat-
ing a Hours rule against putting money
into unauthorimd projects. (1893 Week-
ly Report, p. 1ftt6)
The appropriators criticized Public
Bp Jon Seako
BOX8CORE
S& HR 4385 — National
Highway System designs
Works Surface Transportation
Subcommittee approved HR
4385 by voice vote on May 12.
Next likely acW: House Public
Works Committee will mark up
the bill May 17.
Background: The bill would
designate the elements of a new
federal highway system. h also
would authorize funding for new
road and mass transit projects.
Reference: Weekly Report, p.
110.
Works for acting on projects only once
every five or six years. To relieve some of
the pressure from lawmakers eager to
authorise projects in their dietricts, hU-
neta made this deal with Carr Mineta
would move a bill authorising projects in
1994, and Carr would not try to fund� =W projects that had not been authorlsad.
The deal left Mifista's authorWngg
oommittee to decide which highway
projects may receive funding. and the
appropriators to decide how much
money to provide. That arrangement
complies more strictly with House
rules than the appropriators had
been accustomed to In scent
years.
Making A Lbt
The process of choosing
project began late last year. Rap.
Nick J. Rahall A the Democrat
from West Virginia who chairs the
Public Works Subcommittee on
Surface Transportation, Invited
lawmakers to submit requests for
projects. The requests gushed in
--- more than 800 proposals totaling
more than 832.4 billion.
The oommittes's leaders agreed to
limit themselves to a "sero sum" bee
that would spend no more money from
the Highway Trust Fund than
already has approved. That p
forced the leaders to conduct a scavea-
get hunt for unused dollars in the three
previous surface transportation bills.
The bunt rounded up $525 million
for road projects In the new bill and
$623 million for mass transit projects.
After consulting with the Transporta-
tion Appropriations SubcoaamWAs,
Minsta's group decided to authorise an
additional $W million for road pr9left
over three years out of the general
sury. The figure cornspon do to what
the appropriators had propo to
spend In fiscal 1094 on highway project
before Public Works protested.
That left the oommittee with about
$2 billion to spend, or $1 for *very $16
in requests. To whittle down the pile,
the Public Works committee's Won
— 1VIlnata, top Republican Bud Shu-
ster of Pennsylvania, Rahall, and the
subcommittee's senior Republkan,
Tom Petri of Wisconsin — first re-
jected requests that came In after the
Jan. 7 deadline announced last year.
Then they weeded out others on
the basis of the 18 questions Rahall
asked project sponsors. Modeled after
the "Investment criteria" that Carr set
for his subcommittee in 1898, the
CQ MAY 14, 1994 -- 1205
Norman Y. Mints
Nlak J. RehaN R
05.:6. 94 16:30
TOYER IMENT it COMMERCE
NO. 340 1
ri
State by State
'lie House bill (HR 4386) to designate segments of a new National
:�iig�.wf y System also would authorize or increase the funding level for at least
270 -oad projects arA 53 mans transit projects. The road projects would be
funs: ed automatiuRe from the Highway Trust Fund or, at the app ropriators'
dire etion, fromi the ; eneral Tressury. The transit programs would be funded
up I o the authorized amount at the appropriators' discretion.
f unXne levels in millions of dollars)
Road Trust timers) Transit TWA
Stott: Proieots Fund Fund Project AuthoAzation
Abb ana
6
$ 9
$30
0
a 0
A4 :I a
0
0
0
1
20
Attu no
$
8
9
0
a
Arlo. teas
6
4
13
0
0
cats grin
38
79.6
120
12
100.1
two ado
2
3.5
2
1
13
Cwvo 0cut
3
0
11
1
4.9
Data sere
0
0
0
0
0
Oist l a of Cotumtda
3
3.8
0
0
0
pion) is
9
12
40
4
58.3
Oea•#a
6
14
60.2
1
18
wwi N
0
0
0
0
0
1dsiv -
0
0
0
0
0
IpIrK s
20
36
22
9
22.8
Intlhi u!
9
7
67.4
1
0.1
lows
6
0.9
22
0
0
s ic
leadership and committees Important to
transportation, such as Appropriations.
t(enl cy
3
7
8
1
6
L44 loan
2
6
3
1
40
Main r
0
0
O•
0
0
Mary mw
4
319
le
3
20
Mtas; actweett
3
4
2.2
4
68.8
Mktg gan
12
23
73.3
0
0
Man n asota
7
$3.2
29
1
20
MWc ssippi
1
3
0
0
0
Mas&I Wd
7
17.3
36
1
21.9
Mon' an
2
2 .1
5
0
0
Net- mks
3
0
3.8
0
0
Neva da
2
1
9
0
0
H:: H
slew Jersey
8
9
3
2
18
?!sw Mexico
2
0
a
0
0
ww York
16
20
38.9
a
38.8
•tort) . Caron"
7
0
36
0
0
.forts . Dakota
0
0
0
0
0
1'
1
66.4
1
0
10
Alt soma
0
•f9 m
3
0.5
9.5
1
0.6
Aenr sytvanla
t6
463
20
1
a
Puss a Rico
0
0
0
1
40
Rho; a Island
1
0
a
0
0
Sou". r Camona
2
4
1.5
0
0
Borst 1 Dakota
1
0
4.6
0
0
Tarr sssee
7
11.2
t o
1
6.9
Tom e
4
4
28
Nth
4
10
9�
0
0
Vom sM
O
0
0
0
0
MM1rpi r islands
1
6
0
0
0
VNgt ga
a
20
28.4
1
10
wee• +inpton
9
6.4
$4.1
1
0.4
wtis iw lnia
2
24A
0
1
11.4
mss onsin
7
24.9
a
2
15
W1 sky
0
0
0
0
0
TOT. %L
270 $ E6e.9 $ sass to 4 $94.7
1204 - • MAY 14, 1994 CQ
questions tried to gauge the economic
and environmental Impacts of each
propp�wal and the po.slble alternatives.
Nest, the committee oonsulted fed-
eral, state and local officials to eliminate
requests that did not fit Into their prior-
ities. Even after this vetting, though, the
committee still had billions of dollars'
worth of projects that met its criteria.
At this point, the selection process
'
shitted from objective criteria to politi•
cal ones. Mineta and Shuster divided the
available pot according to the partisan
makeup of Congress -- Mineta would
,
use roughly 60 percent of the pot for
projects requested by Democrats, and
Shuster would have 40 percent for
projects requested by Republicans.
PI*Mng and Choosing
Working with Rahall, Mineta
weeded through the requests from
Democrats to try to achieve a geo-
,
graphic balance. The two lawmakers
also tried to follow the highway distri-
bution formulae in the 1991 surface
transportation law, which tend to shift
'
money from growing Sun Belt states
to sparsely populated Western states
and the urbanized Northeast. Further
oonsideration was given to members of
the Public Works Committee.
The final cut was Mlnsta's, and it
boiled down to this: Democrats who had
advocated spending cuts were more
'
likely to have deeper cuts in their own
requests than those who had not.
As he moved about Capitol Hill in
the days surrounding the bM's intro-
'
duction, Mineta carried a valise
stuffed with Information about the re-
quests for projects and the positions
members had taken. That way, his
'
could explain how the decisions on
projects were made. It did not make
every member happy he said, but at
least
theyy �underetoo�.
'
Like Mineta and Rahall, Republi-
cans Shuster and Petri tried not to stray
from the formulas set in the 1991 law.
They also1avored requests from msm-
'
hers of Public Works, the Republican
leadership and committees Important to
transportation, such as Appropriations.
Unlike their Democratic col.
leagues, though, Shuster and Petri
'
tried to give some money to ever Re-
with a valid request. Thus,
p ublican
Democrats who called for spending
cuts might find themselves with fewer
'
dollars than Republicans who had
taken the same position.
Tarrns of tho am
The bill includes =1.4 billion for
270 specific road, bridge, bike and
u
r
BOY#NNMaNT a 00111"Re!
Keen Eyes for Highway Money
(n case anyone mis&ed the main point of HR 4386,
�Leeponsor Nick J. Rahall II, D -W.VL, spelled it out
zom the c:hairtnan's seat at the House Public Works
Subcommittee an Surface Transportation. Twice.
"The fimdaraental purpose of this legislation is to
losignate the National Highway System," Rahall said at
:be subcomtmitbm's markup ses-
sion May 12. "1 do hope the mam-
berawill natlose might of that fact.
The fundaunenttd purpose of this
legislation :u to clesignate the Na-
tional Highway System"
That purpcm is easy to over-
look. The bill devotes but one
paragraph to doesignating the ele-
ments of the now National High -
way System, a network of existing
intercity and inWrrtate roadwm
that carry 40 percent of the na-
tion's traffic. The bill does not
even name the routes. It simply
refers to it map of the system
submitted by 4* Tramportation The bill means dollar# t
Department.
Most lawmeLkere, instead were eyeing the portion of
the bill that would authorize money' for specific road
and mass transit projects. The Iegislation it sizing up as
lawmakeru' only chance this year to authorize road and
transit projects in their districts. (Chart, P. 1204)
Still, there is a payoff to being designated a National
Highway Systerm route. The 1991 surface transportation
law (PL 102.240) reserves $6.5 billion annually for those
routes in fiscal 1995 -95, which Is more than 30 percent
of federal highway aid. (1991 Almanac, p. 187)
Highway user groups want even more of the federal
highway pot to be spent, on National Highway System
routes. The evetem will carry an estimated 75 percent of
all truck traffic and SO percent of all tourist traffic.
The Federal Highway Administration released a pre-
liminary map of the proposed system in December, In-
cluding the interstates and roughly 92,000 miles of
intercity and connecting routes chosen by the states.
Although a number of civic and business groups
expressed dismay over routes that
were left off the December map,
state transportation officials said
they were largely satisfied with the
plan, Rahall acid he got onLv a few
requesta for changes and rejected
ate that were not supported by
federal and state officials.
The Federal Highway Admin-
istration ultimately proposed 32
changes in its map, affecting i8
states. The net change in mileage
from the proposal in December
was an addition of 647 miles, or
four - tenths of 1 percen
Just what benefit the National
or designated ro
utes. Highway System designation MR
bring to route# Is n clear. Thar$ is
no link in the current law between the number of miles a
state has on the new system and the amount of dollars it
receives for those routes. Some states asked for the maxi-
mum number of miles, betting that mileage ultimately will
be connected to funding. Other states asked for the mini-
mum number, hoping to avoid expensive federal mandates
that might be imposed on the system.
One likely benefit: Some federal programs almost
certainly will be reserved for routes on the new system.
One example is the Intelligent Vehicle Highway System
program, which uses new communications technologies
to reduce traffic congestion on highways.
--Jon 8eedep
tr,- 11 projects and $694.7 for 83 mass
tr.--. nsit systems.
It also would authorize ale million
to guarantee: loans for a toll road
pr ,jest in Orange County, Calif., as
re- tuested by California Republicans
R, n Packard, Jay C. Kim and Robert
K. Dornan; 5.2.5 million to build a visi-
to a center mt the New River Parkway
in West Virginia, as requested by Ra-
hn: d; and $2 million for a "coal herl-
te ;e trail" toter route in W est Virginia,
at requested by FAhall.
The money for road projects would
m m from two pots, each with its own
aq. vantages and disadvantages. Almost
$7i 36 million would come from the gen-
es il Treasury over the nbxt three years,
at: bject to the approprieOrs' approval.
A r additional $505 million would come
zr,m the Highwa;► Trust Fund, which
would not require an appropriation.
The risk for projects funded out of
the trust fund Is that the bill may not
p ass. Indeed, the Senate has shown no
interest in authorizing projects this
year. (Weekly eport, P. 111)
The deal between Mineta and Carr
may permit the appropriators to go
forward with the projects to be funded
from the general Treasury even if HR
4365 dies in the Senate. Those
projects, however, have to compete
wit every other federal transporta-
tion p rogram for scarce funds.
When the Surface Transportation
Subcommittee took up the bill Me
12, there was no discussion of the
projects. Instead, most of the debate
concerned amendments dealing with
motorcycle helmets and metric signs.
The 1991 surface transportation law
required states to enact laws requIrin
motorcycle riders to wear helmets ani
driven to wear out belts. States that
failed to do so would have a portion of
their highway aid transformed into
grants for safety programs.
The original version of HR 4365
would have given states an additional
year, until the end of 1995, to comply.
By a 20 -19 vote, however, the sub-
committee ado pted a Petri amend-
ment that would delete the penalty for
non - compliance.
The committee also agreed by
voice vote to an amendment by Rep.
Ladle L. Byrne, D -V&., against con -
verting to metric signs. Under Byrne's
amendment, the Transportation De-
partment could not require states to
convert their highway signs to metric
measurements. M
' CQ MAY 14, 1994 — 1205