Connecticut’s Highway Apportionments & Fact Sheets

MAP-21 FY2013

Connecticut’s Highway Apportionments & Fact Sheets

This document was updated on 1/24/2013

(All Apportionments & Fact Sheets contained in this document reflect

what is posted on FHWA’s website and is subject to change)

2 Back to Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Connecticut’s Total FY13 MAP-21 Highway Apportionments .............................................................................. 3

MAP-21 Apportionments Fact Sheet ..................................................................................................................... 4

Railway – Highway Crossings Program (RHX) Apportionment Chart & Fact Sheet ............................................ 6

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Apportionment Chart & Fact Sheet .......................................... 9

Safety Redistribution (SRD) Funds & Notice ...................................................................................................... 13

National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) Apportionment Chart & Fact Sheet ................................... 15

Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) Apportionment Chart & Fact Sheet ... 21

State Planning & Research (SPR) Apportionment Chart & Fact Sheet .............................................................. 26

Metropolitan Planning Program Apportionment Chart & Fact Sheet .............................................................. 29

Surface Transportation Program (STP) Apportionment Chart & Fact Sheet .................................................... 33

Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) Apportionment Chart & Fact Sheet ............................................ 38


Table 1. Connecticut’s FY13 MAP-21 Apportionments (as of October, 2012)

PROGRAM Subject to Obligation Limitation

Exempt from Obligation Limitation

TOTAL

Railway – Highway Crossings Program (RHX) $1,307,861 $1,307,861

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) $28,150,252 $28,150,252

Safety Redistribution Funds (SRD) $655,798 $655,798

National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) $249,465,325 $8,003,789 $249,465,325

Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) $42,580,832 $42,580,832

State Planning & Research (SPR) $9,590,707 $9,590,707

Metropolitan Planning Program $4,398,772 $4,398,772

Surface Transportation Program (STP) $123,096,756 $123,096,756

Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) $8,576,285 $8,576,285

TOTAL $467,822,588 $8,003,789 $475,826,377

Obligation Limitation (October 1, 2012 – March 27, 2013) $214,640,318

Figure 1. Connecticut’s FY13 MAP-21 Apportionments Subject to Obligation Limitation (as of October, 2012)

Figure 2. Connecticut’s FY13 MAP-21 Apportionments by Program Percentages (as of October, 2012)

$0

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

$250,000,000

$300,000,000

$350,000,000

$400,000,000

$450,000,000

$500,000,000

FY13 ApportionmentsSubjected to ObligationLimitation

FY13 ObligationLimitation (October 1st,2012 - March 27th, 2013)

RHX<1%

HSIP 6%

SRD<1%

NHPP 52%

CMAQ 9%

SPR 2%

Metro Planning

1%

STP 26%

TAP=2% NHPP

(Exempt) 2%


Fact Sheet

MAP-21 APPORTIONMENTS

(As posted on FHWA MAP-21 webpage)

Apportionment

Main statutory citation(s): MAP-21 §1105, 1122; 23 USC 104, 130, 213

Overview

Prior to MAP-21, each apportioned program had its own formula for distribution, and the total amount of Federal assistance a State received was the sum of the amounts it received for each program. MAP-21 instead provides a total apportionment for each State and then divides that State amount among individual apportioned programs.

Total funding for Federal-aid highway formula programs

MAP-21 authorizes a total combined amount ($37.5 billion in FY13 and $37.8 billion in FY14) in contract authority to fund five formula programs (including certain setasides within the programs described below):

National Highway Performance Program (NHPP); Surface Transportation Program (STP); Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP); Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ); and Metropolitan Planning Program.

Division of total apportioned amount among States

MAP-21 requires FHWA to divide the total authorized amount among the States in the following manner:

In FY13, the State receives the same total apportionment that it received in FY12. In FY14, the State receives a total apportionment share equal to the State's share of FY12 formula

funds. The resulting total apportionment is adjusted, if necessary, to ensure that the State receives at least 95% of the dollar amount of its contributions to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund.

SEE TABLE ON NEXT PAGE

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/apportionment.cfm

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/apportionment.cfm


Division of a State's apportionment among programs

After determining the total apportionment for a State, MAP-21 divides that apportionment among the State's individual formula programs in the following manner:

CMAQ [23 USC 104(b)(4)]

Funded in an amount equal to the State's total apportionment multiplied by the following ratio:

State's FY09 CMAQ $

State's total FY09 apportionments

Metro Planning [23 USC 104(b)(5)]

Funded in an amount equal to the State's total apportionment multiplied by the following ratio:

State's FY09 Metro Planning $

State's total FY09 apportionments

NHPP [23 USC 104(b)(1)] STP [23 USC 104(b)(2)] HSIP [23 USC 104(b)(3)]

The remainder (net of CMAQ and Metro Planning) is divided based on the following proportions:

63.7% to NHPP 29.3% to STP 7.0% to HSIP

Railway Highway Crossings [23 USC 130]

Funded with an amount set aside from the State's HSIP apportionment –

Based on a current law formula for distribution; and Such that the national total for the program is $220 million per

year.

Transportation Alternatives (TA) [§1122; 23 USC 213]

Funded via setaside from NHPP, STP, HSIP, CMAQ, & Metro Planning:

The State receives a share of total TA funding equal to its share of total FY09 transportation enhancements (TE) funding.

The setaside is taken proportionally from each of the five programs in relation to the relative sizes of the State's apportionments (e.g., if a State's NHPP apportionment makes up 50% of what the State receives for the five programs, 50% of the setaside is applied against NHPP).

Unless the State opts out, an amount of TA equal to the State's FY09 Recreational Trails Program (RTP) apportionment is set aside for the RTP.


SEE FACT SHEET ON NEXT PAGE

Connecticut MAP-21 Apportionments FY2013

(FHWA Notice 4510.761 - Published January 9th, 2013)

RAILWAY-HIGHWAY CROSSINGS PROGRAM

As of October, 2012

$1,307,861

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/notices/n4510761/


Fact Sheet

RAILWAY-HIGHWAY CROSSINGS PROGRAM (RHX)


Program purpose

This program funds safety improvements to reduce the number of fatalities, injuries, and crashes at public grade crossings.

Statutory citation(s): MAP-21 §1519; 23 USC 130

Funding features

Funded by contract authority from the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund. Funds are subject to the overall Federal-aid obligation limitation.

Funds are derived from a set-aside of amounts calculated for apportionment to the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP).

First, each State's funding level is determined based on the following factors:

50% based on the formula factors for the Surface Transportation Program (STP) in 23 USC 104(b)(3)(A), as in effect the day before enactment of MAP-21; and

50% based on the number of public railway-highway crossings.

[23 USC 130(f)]

Each State is guaranteed to receive a minimum of ½% of the program funds.

The railway-highway crossings program funding level determined for each State is set aside from the State's HSIP amount.

50% of each State's railway-highway crossings funds must be set aside for the installation of protective devices at railway-highway crossings. [23 USC 130(e)]

Special rule -- If a State demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that it has met all its needs for installation of protective devices at railway-highway crossings, the funds may be used for other highway safety improvement purposes. [23 USC 130(e)]

Federal share: The Federal share is 90 percent. [23 USC 130(f)(3)]

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/rhc.cfm

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/rhc.cfm


Eligible activities

All previous eligibilities under 23 USC 130 continue.

A State may use up to 2% of its railway-highway crossings funds for compilation and analysis of data for the required annual report to the Secretary on the progress that is being made implementing the program.

Activities funded under this program are also eligible for funding under the broader HSIP eligibilities. The STP also includes eligibility for funding of railway-highway crossings projects.

Program features

Many of the requirements of the program remain unchanged, including:

Each State is required to conduct and systematically maintain a survey of all highways to identify those railroad crossings that may require separation, relocation, or protective devices, and establish and implement a schedule of projects for this purpose. At a minimum this schedule is to provide signs for all railway-highway crossings. [23 USC 130(d)]

A railroad participating in a hazard elimination project is responsible for compensating the State transportation department for the net benefit to the railroad of the project. The net benefit is determined by the Secretary of Transportation, but may not exceed 10 percent of the project cost. [23 USC 130(b) and (c)]

States are required to submit annual reports, and the Secretary is required to report to Congress every two years on the progress being made by the States to implement this program. [23 USC 130(g)]

A State may use its railway-highway crossings funds to make an incentive payment to local government for a public at-grade crossing closure, as long as the railroad owning the track also makes an incentive payment. [23 USC 130(i)]

National Crossing Inventory – Each State is required to annually update information in the DOT crossing inventory database, including information about warning devices and signage, for each public crossing located within its borders. [23 USC 130(l)]





HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HSIP)

As of October, 2012

$29,253,674

Set Asides

Transportation Alternative Program (TAP)

$518,349

State Planning & Research (SPR)

$585,073

Balance of Funds

$28,150,252



Fact Sheet

HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HSIP)


Program purpose

MAP-21 continues the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non-State-owned public roads and roads on tribal lands. The HSIP requires a data-driven, strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public roads that focuses on performance.

Statutory citation(s): MAP-21 §1112; 23 USC 130 and 148

Funding features


MAP-21 has a new approach to core formula program funding, authorizing a lump sum total instead of individual authorizations for each program. Once each State's share of the total is calculated, it is divided up by program within the State. (See "Apportionment" fact sheet).

Set-asides

From the State's HSIP apportionment, the following sums are to be set aside:

Railway-highway crossings -- $220 million. A proportionate share of funds for the State's Transportation Alternatives (TA) program.

(See "Apportionment" fact sheet for a description of this calculation) 2% for State Planning and Research (SPR). [§52005; 23 USC 505]

Federal share: Except as provided in 23 U.S.C. 120(c) and 130, the Federal share is 90%.

Eligible use of funding

A highway safety improvement project is any strategy, activity or project on a public road that is consistent with the data-driven State Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and corrects or improves a hazardous road location or feature or addresses a highway safety problem. MAP-21 provides an example list of eligible activities, but HSIP projects are not limited to those on the list.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/hsip.cfm


Workforce development, training, and education activities are also an eligible use of HSIP funds.

[§1109; 23 USC 504(e)]

Program features

The primary features of the current HSIP are retained, including the requirement for a comprehensive, data-driven, SHSP that defines State safety goals and describes a program of strategies to improve safety. To obligate HSIP funds, a State must develop, implement and update a SHSP, produce a program of projects or strategies to reduce identified safety problems, and evaluate the SHSP on a regular basis.

The SHSP remains a statewide coordinated plan developed in cooperation with a broad range of multidisciplinary stakeholders.

States are required to have a safety data system to perform problem identification and countermeasure analysis on all public roads, adopt strategic and performance-based goals, advance data collection, analysis, and integration capabilities, determine priorities for the correction of identified safety problems, and establish evaluation procedures.

The Secretary is required to establish a subset of the model inventory of roadway elements (listing of roadway and traffic data elements critical to safety management, analysis, and decisionmaking), to be adopted and used by States to support these requirements.

Strategic Highway Safety Plan Updates

MAP-21 establishes a new requirement for regular SHSP updates.

The Secretary is directed to establish requirements for plan updates by October 2013. States will submit updated plans to the Secretary, along with a description of the

process used to update the plan. If a State fails to have an approved updated plan by August 1 of the first fiscal year after

the requirements are established, that State will not be eligible to receive additional obligation limitation during the annual redistribution of unused obligation limitation (August redistribution).

Special Rules

High Risk Rural Road (HRRR) Safety – A HRRR is any rural major or minor collector or a rural local road with significant safety risks, as defined by a State in accordance with an updated SHSP. If the fatality rate on such roads increases over the most recent 2-year period for which data are available, in the next fiscal year the State must obligate for this purpose an amount at least equal to 200% of its FY 2009 HRRR set-aside.


Older drivers – If fatalities and serious injuries per capita for drivers and pedestrians over age 65 increases during the most recent 2-year period for which data are available, a State is required to incorporate strategies focused on older drivers and pedestrians in the next SHSP update.

Reporting

States are required to report to the Secretary on progress made implementing highway safety improvements, effectiveness, and the extent to which fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads have been reduced, including a breakdown by functional classification and ownership to the maximum extent practicable. The Secretary will establish the content and schedule for such reports, which will be made available to the public on the DOT website.

Implementation

States will administer the HSIP, with appropriate oversight by the Office of Safety and the FHWA Division Office. The program also includes a clear linkage between behavioral State safety programs (NHTSA-funded §31102; 23 USC 402) and the SHSP.

Performance

Within 18 months of enactment, the Secretary, in consultation with States, MPOs, and other stakeholders, is directed to publish a rulemaking establishing measures for the States to use to assess serious injuries and fatalities per vehicle mile traveled and number of serious injuries and fatalities.

[§1203; 23 USC 150(c)]

States will establish targets for these measures within 1 year of the final rule on national performance measures. [§1203; 23 USC 150(d)]

If a State has not met or made significant progress toward meeting the targets within 2 years of their establishment, the State must use an amount of its formula obligation limitation equal to its prior year HSIP apportionment only for obligation of its HSIP funding, and submit an annual implementation plan on how the State will make progress to meet performance targets. [§1112; 23 USC 148(i)]



$655,798

SAFETY REDISTRIBUTION FUNDS (SRD)

(October 1, 2012 – March 27, 2013)

Connecticut MAP-21 Redistribution Funds FY2013

(FHWA Notice 4510.760 - Published October 18th, 2012)

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/notices/n4510760.htm


Federal Notice

REDISTRIBUTION OF CERTAIN AUTHORIZED FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013

(October 1, 2012 – March 27, 2013)

(As posted on FHWA website)

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Notice

Subject Redistribution of Certain Authorized Funds for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 (October 1, 2012, through March 27, 2013)

Classification Code Date Office of Primary Interest

N 4510.760 October 18, 2012 HCFB-1

1. What is the purpose of this Notice? This Notice transmits the redistribution of certain authorized funds pursuant to the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013, Public Law (Pub. L.) 112-175. The distribution of these funds for the period from October 1, 2012, through March 27, 2013, is shown in the attached table.

2. What is the background information? a. Pursuant to section 152 of the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013, the redistribution of certain authorized

funds is determined by applying section 1102(f) of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), Pub. L. 112-141.

b. Funds that are authorized to be appropriated for Federal-aid highway programs for FY 2013 under MAP-21 that will not be allocated to the States (or will not be apportioned for the Federal Lands Access Program) and will not be available for obligation in FY 2013 due to the imposition of any obligation limitation for such fiscal year shall be distributed to the States.

c. The funds authorized for the Tribal Transportation Program are not subject to this provision and authorized amounts for such program that are in excess of the associated obligation limitation are not redistributed to the States.

d. Such funds shall be distributed to the States in the same proportion as the FY 2013 distribution of formula obligation limitation for the period from October 1, 2012, through March 27, 2013, calculated under section 1102(c)(5) of MAP-21.

3. What is the availability of these funds? a. These funds are available for obligation until September 30, 2016. Any amounts not obligated by the State on or

before that date shall lapse. b. The funds resulting from this distribution are available immediately and shall be subject to obligation controls in

force at the time of obligation. No new obligation authority is distributed with these funds. c. The Federal share payable shall be in accordance with section 120 of title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.), except as

provided by another provision of law. d. The funds are available for any purpose described in section 133(b) of title 23, U.S.C. e. The program code to be used when obligating these funds is M030.

4. What action is required? Division Administrators should ensure that copies of this Notice are provided to the State departments of transportation.

Victor M. Mendez, Administrator










NATIONAL HIGHWAY PERFORMANCE PROGRAM (NHPP)

As of October, 2012

$278,109,967

Set Asides

Penalty (MAP-21)

Open Container Penalty

$10,150,795


$4,927,859


$5,562,199

Balance of Funds

Subject to Obligation Limitation

$249,465,325

Exempt from Obligation Limitation

$8,003,789

$257,469,114

NHTSA SPLIT

$5,075,397.50

CTDOT HIGHWAY SAFETY

(BEHAVIORAL)

$5,075,397.50

FHWA SPLIT

$5,075,397.50

CTDOT HIGHWAY SAFETY

(ENGINEERING)

$5,075,397.50



Fact Sheet

NATIONAL HIGHWAY PERFORMANCE PROGRAM (NHPP)


Program purpose

The NHPP provides support for the condition and performance of the National Highway System (NHS), for the construction of new facilities on the NHS, and to ensure that investments of Federal-aid funds in highway construction are directed to support progress toward the achievement of performance targets established in a State's asset management plan for the NHS.


Funding features


MAP-21 has a new approach to core formula program funding, authorizing a lump sum total instead of individual authorizations for each program. Once each State's share of the total is calculated, it is divided up by program within the State. (See "Apportionment" fact sheet for more detail).

Set-asides

From the State's NHPP apportionment, the following sums are to be set aside:

A proportionate share of funds for the State's Transportation Alternatives (TA) program. (See "Apportionment" fact sheet for a description of this calculation).

2% for State Planning and Research (SPR). [§52005; 23 USC 505]

Federal share: Determined in accordance with 23 USC 120, including a special rate for certain safety projects and a new provision for increased Federal share for projects incorporating Innovative Project Delivery. The Federal share for NHPP projects for a State that has not implemented an asset management plan within the established timeframe is limited to 65%. Other exceptions to 23 USC 120 are provided for certain freight projects, workforce development, training, and education activities, Appalachian development highway system projects. (See "Federal Share" fact sheet)

Eligible activities

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/nhpp.cfm

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/nhpp.cfm


NHPP projects must be on an eligible facility and support progress toward achievement of national performance goals for improving infrastructure condition, safety, mobility, or freight movement on the NHS, and be consistent with Metropolitan and Statewide planning requirements. Eligible activities include:

Construction, reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, preservation, or operational improvements of NHS segments.

Construction, replacement (including replacement with fill material), rehabilitation, preservation, and protection (including scour countermeasures, seismic retrofits, impact protection measures, security countermeasures, and protection against extreme events) of NHS bridges and tunnels.

Bridge and tunnel inspection and evaluation on the NHS and inspection and evaluation of other NHS highway infrastructure assets.

Training of bridge and tunnel inspectors. Construction, rehabilitation, or replacement of existing ferry boats and facilities,

including approaches, that connect road segments of the NHS. Construction, reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, and preservation

of, and operational improvements for, a Federal-aid highway not on the NHS, and construction of a transit project eligible for assistance under chapter 53 of title 49, if the project is in the same corridor and in proximity to a fully access-controlled NHS route, if the improvement is more cost-effective (as determined by a benefit-cost analysis) than an NHS improvement, and will reduce delays or produce travel time savings on the NHS route and improve regional traffic flow.

Bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways. Highway safety improvements on the NHS. Capital and operating costs for traffic and traveler information, monitoring,

management, and control facilities and programs. Development and implementation of a State Asset Management Plan for the NHS

including data collection, maintenance and integration, software costs, and equipment costs.

Infrastructure-based ITS capital improvements. Environmental restoration and pollution abatement. Control of noxious weeds and establishment of native species. Environmental mitigation related to NHPP projects. Construction of publicly owned intracity or intercity bus terminals servicing the NHS.

Workforce development, training, and education activities are also an eligible use of NHPP funds.

[§1109; 23 USC 504(e)]

Location of projects


NHPP funds may only be used for projects on or associated with the NHS as described above under "Eligible activities." An exception is provided under certain circumstances for non-NHS highway or transit projects in an NHS corridor.

Program features

Enhanced National Highway System

Under MAP-21, the enhanced NHS is composed of approximately 220,000 miles of rural and urban roads serving major population centers, international border crossings, intermodal transportation facilities, and major travel destinations. It includes:

The Interstate System. All principal arterials (including those not previously designated as part of the NHS) and

border crossings on those routes. Intermodal connectors -- highways that provide motor vehicle access between the NHS

and major intermodal transportation facilities. STRAHNET -- the network of highways important to U.S. strategic defense. STRAHNET connectors to major military installations.

[§1104; 23 USC 103]

Asset management

Within 18 months of enactment, the Secretary is directed to publish a rulemaking establishing the process for States to use in developing a risk-based, performance-based asset management plan for preserving and improving the condition of the NHS. States are encouraged to include all infrastructure assets within the right-of-way corridor. The plan must include at least the following:

Summary list, including condition, of the State's NHS pavements and bridges Asset management objectives and measures Performance gap identification Lifecycle cost and risk management analysis Financial plan Investment strategies

Each State's process must be reviewed and recertified at least every 4 years. If certification is denied, the State has 90 days to cure deficiencies. If a State has not developed and implemented an asset management plan consistent with requirements by the beginning of the 2nd fiscal year after the establishment of the process, the Federal share for NHPP projects in that fiscal year is reduced to 65%.

Minimum pavement and bridge conditions


Interstate conditions --The Secretary will establish a minimum level of condition for Interstate pavements, which may vary by geographic region. If, during two consecutive reporting periods, Interstate pavement conditions in a State fall below the minimum set by the Secretary, the State must, at a minimum, devote the following resources to improve Interstate pavement conditions during the following fiscal year (and each year thereafter if the condition remains below the minimum):

o NHPP funds in an amount equal to the State's FY 2009 Interstate Maintenance (IM) apportionment, to increase by 2% per year for each year after FY 2013.

o Funds transferred from the STP (not from suballocated amounts) to the NHPP in an amount equal to 10% of the amount of the State's FY 2009 IM apportionment.

Bridge conditions – MAP-21 establishes a minimum standard for NHS bridge conditions. If more than 10% of the total deck area of NHS bridges in a State is on structurally deficient bridges for three consecutive years, the State must devote NHPP funds in an amount equal to 50% of the State's FY 2009 Highway Bridge Program apportionment to improve bridge conditions during the following fiscal year (and each year thereafter if the condition remains below the minimum).

Bridge and tunnel inspection standards

If a State is in noncompliance with bridge and tunnel inspection standards established by the Secretary, a portion of NHPP funds must be used to correct the problem. (See "Bridge and Tunnel Inspection" fact sheet). [§1111; 23 USC 144(h)(5)]

Performance

Within 18 months of enactment, the Secretary, in consultation with States, MPOs, and other stakeholders, is directed to publish a rulemaking establishing:

Minimum standards for States to use in developing and operating bridge and pavement management systems.

Performance measures for Interstate and NHS pavement condition, NHS bridge condition, and Interstate and NHS performance.

Minimum conditions for Interstate pavements – may vary geographically. Data elements necessary to collect and maintain standardized data to carry out a

performance-based approach.

[§1203; 23 USC 150(c)]

States are required to establish targets for these measures within 1 year of the final rule on national performance measures. [§1203; 23 USC 150(d)]


States will report to DOT on progress in achieving targets within 4 years of enactment and then every 2 years [§1203; 23 USC 150(e)] and MPOs will report to DOT on progress in their Metropolitan Transportation Plan (4 or 5 year frequency). [§1201; 23 USC 134(i)]

If a State does not meet or make significant progress toward targets for 2 consecutive reporting periods, the State must document in its next report the actions it will take to achieve the targets. [§1106; 23 USC 119(e)(7)]

Transition period

Until a State has in effect an approved asset management plan and has established performance targets, but no later than 18 months after the Secretary has promulgated the rulemaking for the performance measures, the Secretary will approve obligations of funds in that State for the NHPP that otherwise meet the NHPP eligibility criteria. This transition period may be extended if the Secretary determines that the State has made a good faith effort to establish an asset management plan and performance targets.

[§1106(b)]





CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CMAQ)

As of October, 2012

$44,249,899

Set Asides


$784,069


$884,998

Balance of Funds

$42,580,832



Fact Sheet

CONGESTION MITIGATION & AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CMAQ)


Program purpose

The CMAQ program is continued in MAP-21 to provide a flexible funding source to State and local governments for transportation projects and programs to help meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Funding is available to reduce congestion and improve air quality for areas that do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter (nonattainment areas) and for former nonattainment areas that are now in compliance (maintenance areas).


Funding features


MAP-21 has a new approach to core formula program funding, authorizing a lump sum total instead of individual authorizations for each program. Once each State's combined total apportionment is calculated, an amount is set aside for the State's CMAQ program via a calculation based on the relative size of the State's FY 2009 CMAQ apportionment. (See "Apportionment" fact sheet for a description of this calculation)

Set-asides

From the State's CMAQ apportionment, the following sums are to be set aside:

A proportionate share of funds for the State's Transportation Alternatives (TA) program. (See "Apportionment" fact sheet for a description of this calculation)

2% for State Planning and Research (SPR). [§52005; 23 USC 505]

Federal share: In accordance with 23USC120.

Eligible activities

Funds may be used for transportation projects likely to contribute to the attainment or maintenance of a national ambient air quality standard, with a high level of effectiveness in reducing air pollution, and be included in the Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO's)

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/cmaq.cfm


current transportation plan and transportation improvement program (TIP) or the current state transportation improvement program (STIP) in areas without an MPO.

Some specific eligible activities are described below:

Establishment or operation of a traffic monitoring, management, and control facility, including advanced truck stop electrification systems, if it contributes to attainment of an air quality standard.

Projects that improve traffic flow, including projects to improve signalization, construct HOV lanes, improve intersections, add turning lanes, improve transportation systems management and operations that mitigate congestion and improve air quality, and implement ITS and other CMAQ-eligible projects, including projects to improve incident and emergency response or improve mobility, such as real-time traffic, transit, and multimodal traveler information.

Purchase of integrated, interoperable emergency communications equipment. Projects that shift traffic demand to nonpeak hours or other transportation modes,

increase vehicle occupancy rates, or otherwise reduce demand. Purchase of diesel retrofits or conduct of related outreach activities. Facilities serving electric or natural gas-fueled vehicles (except where this conflicts with

prohibition on rest area commercialization) are explicitly eligible. Some expanded authority to use funds for transit operations.

Workforce development, training, and education activities are also an eligible use of CMAQ funds.

[§1109; 23 USC 504(e)]

Program features

Some existing provisions are explicitly highlighted:

PM-10 non-attainment -- A State may obligate CMAQ funds for projects for PM-10 non-attainment areas without regard to type of air quality standard it addresses.

HOV facilities -- No funds may be used to add capacity except HOV facilities that are available to SOV only at off-peak times.

State flexibility

A State without a nonattainment or maintenance area may use its CMAQ funds for any CMAQ- or STP-eligible project.

States with a nonattainment or maintenance area that received a minimum apportionment in FY 2009 may use an amount of its current CMAQ funds for any STP-eligible project. The amount is based on the proportion of the State's FY 2009 CMAQ apportionment that could be obligated in any area of the State for STP projects.


The amount that may be obligated in any area of the State for STP-eligible projects is to be adjusted if a new nonattainment area is designated or a nonattainment area redesignated as an attainment area.

Evaluation of projects

The Secretary must maintain and disseminate a cumulative database describing the impacts of projects, including project name, location, sponsor, cost, and cost-effectiveness (based on reduction in congestion and emissions) to the extent already measured.

The Secretary, in consultation with EPA, shall evaluate cost effectiveness of projects periodically, for use by States and MPOs in project selection.

Optional programmatic eligibility

At the discretion of an MPO, a technical assessment of a selected program of projects may be conducted through modeling or other means. If the required emissions reduction is demonstrated, no further demonstration is needed for individual projects included.

PM 2.5 areas

MAP-21 calls for a State with PM 2.5 (fine particulate matter) nonattainment or maintenance areas to give priority to using funds for projects proven to reduce PM 2.5 emissions in such areas; eligible projects to mitigate PM 2.5 include diesel retrofits.

CMAQ outcomes assessment study

The Secretary, in consultation with EPA, will assess emission reductions, air quality and health impacts of actions funded under the CMAQ program since the enactment of SAFETEA-LU.

To be performed by an independent scientific research organization. Scoping report due within 1 year; final report within 2 years of enactment. Funded by up to $1 million set aside from the amount authorized for FHWA's

Administrative expenses.

Performance

The CMAQ program has new performance-based features.

Within 18 months of enactment, the Secretary, in consultation with States, MPOs, and other stakeholders, is directed to publish a rulemaking establishing measures for States to use to assess traffic congestion and on-road mobile source emissions. [§1203; 23 USC 150(c)]


States are required to establish targets for these measures within 1 year of the final rule on national performance measures. [§1203; 23 USC 150(d)]

Each MPO with a transportation management area of more than one million in population representing a nonattainment or maintenance area is required to develop and update biennially a performance plan to achieve air quality and congestion reduction targets. [§1113; 23 USC 149(l)]





STATE PLANNING & RESEARCH (SPR)

As of October, 2012

$9,590,707

Research Development & Technology

$2,397,677

Statewide Planning

$7,193,030



Fact Sheet

STATE PLANNING & RESEARCH (SPR)


Program purpose

The State Planning and Research Program funds States' statewide planning and research activities. The funds are used to establish a cooperative, continuous, and comprehensive framework for making transportation investment decisions and to carryout transportation research activities throughout the State.


Funding features

Funding is provided for SP&R by a 2% set-aside from each State's apportionments of four programs: the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP); the Surface Transportation Program (STP); the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP); and the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) Program.

Of the funds that are set aside, a minimum of 25% must be used for research purposes, unless the State certifies that more than 75% of the funds are needed for statewide and metropolitan planning and the Secretary accepts such certification.

In addition, transportation planning, research and development, and technology transfer activities are eligible for funding under the Surface Transportation Program.

Eligible activities

Eligible activities include—

Engineering and economic surveys and investigations Planning of future highway programs and local public transportation systems and

planning of the financing of such programs and systems, including metropolitan and statewide planning

Development and implementation of management systems, plans and processes under the NHPP, HSIP, CMAQ, and the National Freight Policy

Studies of the economy, safety, and convenience of surface transportation systems and the desirable regulation and equitable taxation of such systems

Research, development, and technology transfer activities necessary in connection with the planning, design, construction, management, and maintenance of highway, public transportation, and intermodal transportation systems

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/spr.cfm

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/spr.cfm


Study, research, and training on the engineering standards and construction materials for transportation systems described in the previous bullet, including the evaluation and accreditation of inspection and testing and the regulation and taxation of their use

Conduct of activities relating to the planning of real-time monitoring elements Implementation by the Secretary of the findings and results of the Future Strategic

Highway Research Program[1]

Federal share: The Federal share of the cost of a project carried out with SP&R funds shall be 80% unless the Secretary determines that the interests of the Federal-aid highway program would be best served by decreasing or eliminating the non-Federal share.

SP&R funds may be used by States as the non-Federal share for the Local Technical Assistance Program and the University Transportation Centers program.

[1] This is subject to three-fourths of the States agreeing on a percentage of SP&R funds to be made available to the Secretary for such purpose.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/spr.cfm#_ftn1

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/spr.cfm#_ftnref1





METROPOLITAN PLANNING

As of October, 2012

$4,478,120

Set Asides


$79,348

Balance of Funds

$4,398,772



Fact Sheet

METROPOLITAN PLANNING


Program purpose

The metropolitan planning process establishes a cooperative, continuous, and comprehensive framework for making transportation investment decisions in metropolitan areas. Program oversight is a joint Federal Highway Administration/Federal Transit Administration responsibility.

Statutory and regulatory citation(s): MAP-21§§ 1105, 1201; 23 USC 104, 134; 23 CFR Part 450

Funding features


MAP-21 has a new approach to formula program funding, authorizing a lump sum total instead of individual authorizations for each program. Once each State’s combined total apportionment is calculated, an amount is set aside for the State’s Metropolitan Planning program via a calculation based on the relative size of the State’s FY 2009 Metropolitan Planning apportionment. (See “Apportionment” fact sheet for a description of this calculation.)

Set-asides

From the State’s Metropolitan Planning apportionment, a proportionate share of funds for the State’s Transportation Alternatives Program is to be set aside. (See “Apportionment” fact sheet for a description of this calculation).

Federal share: Determined in accordance with 23 USC 120.

Key modifications

Modifications to the metropolitan planning process include the following:

Performance-based planning

Metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) will be required to establish and use a performance-based approach to transportation decision making and development of transportation plans.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/mp.cfm


Each MPO will establish performance targets that address the MAP-21 surface transportation performance measures (see: National Goals and Performance Management Measures fact sheet).

The performance targets selected by an MPO will be coordinated with the relevant State to ensure consistency to the maximum extent practicable.

Performance targets selected by an MPO will be coordinated with public transportation providers, to the maximum extent practicable, to ensure consistency with sections 5326(c) and 5329(d) of title 49.

MPOs are required to integrate into the metropolitan transportation planning process other performance-based transportation plans or processes.

The MPOs will establish performance targets not later than 180 days after the date that the relevant State or public transportation provider establishes performance targets.

Within 2 years of enactment of MAP-21, the structure of all MPOs will be required to include officials of public agencies that administer or operate public transportation systems.

Long Range Transportation Plan (Plan)

The Plan will include a description of the performance measures and performance targets used in assessing the performance of the transportation system.

The Plan will also include a system performance report and subsequent updates evaluating the condition and performance of the transportation system with respect to the established performance targets.

MPOs have the option of developing multiple scenarios for consideration during the development of the Plan.

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)

The TIP will include, to the maximum extent practicable, a description of the anticipated effect of the TIP toward achieving the performance targets established in the Plan, linking investment priorities to those performance targets.

Continuing provisions

Significant continuing provisions include:

The minimum population required for an MPO remains at more than 50,000; Transportation Management Areas (TMAs) are those areas with a population greater than 200,000.

The Plan must be prepared and updated every 4 years (or more frequently if the MPO elects to do so) in nonattainment areas and areas that were nonattainment and are now under a maintenance plan. In other areas, the Plan will be prepared and updated on a 5 year cycle (or more frequently if the MPO elects to do so).


The Plan covers a minimum 20-year planning horizon with air quality conformity and fiscal constraint.

Public involvement remains a hallmark of the metropolitan planning process. The TIP is to be updated at least once every 4 years and approved by the MPO and

Governor. A congestion management system is required in TMAs and the planning process in TMAs

must be certified by the Secretary.

Performance report

The Secretary is required to submit a report to Congress not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of MAP-21. The report is to evaluate:

The overall effectiveness of performance-based planning as a tool for guiding transportation investments;

The effectiveness of the performance-based planning process for each metropolitan planning organization;

The extent to which MPOs have achieved, or are making substantial progress towards achieving, the performance targets, and whether MPOs are developing meaningful performance targets; and

The technical capacity of MPOs that operate within a metropolitan planning area of less than 200,000, and their ability to carry out the planning requirements.




SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP)

As of October, 2012

$127,921,853

Set Asides


$2,266,660


$2,558,437

Balance of Funds

$123,096,756

50% for Use in Any Area of the State

$61,548,378

To Urbanized Areas with

Populations Over 200,000

Populations

$7,982,284

To Urban Areas with

Population of 5,001 to 200,000

Populations

$46,084,639

To Areas with Population of

5,000 or Less

Populations

$7,481,455

50% Sub-allocated by FHWA based on

Urban Area Populations

$61,548,378

Off-System

Bridges

$24,234,567

For Any STP

Purpose

$37,313,811


Bridgeport-Stamford = $15,113,385

Hartford = $15,926,700

New Haven = $9,692,470

New York–Newark = $1,963

Norwich-New London = $3,238,194

Springfield = $1,544,884

Worcester = $567,043



Fact Sheet

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP)


Program purpose

The Surface Transportation Program (STP) provides flexible funding that may be used by States and localities for projects to preserve and improve the conditions and performance on any Federal-aid highway, bridge and tunnel projects on any public road, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and transit capital projects, including intercity bus terminals.


Funding features


MAP-21 has a new approach to core formula program funding, authorizing a lump sum total instead of individual authorizations for each program. Once each State's share of the total is calculated, it is divided up by program within the State. (See "Apportionment" fact sheet for description of calculation).

Set-asides

From the State's STP apportionment, the following sums are to be set aside:

A proportionate share of funds for the State's Transportation Alternatives (TA) program. (See "Apportionment" fact sheet for a description of this calculation)

2% for State Planning and Research (SPR). [§52005; 23 USC 505] For off-system bridges, an amount not less than 15% of the State's FY 2009 Highway

Bridge Program apportionment (may not be taken from amounts suballocated based on population).

The set-aside for Transportation Enhancements is eliminated.

Suballocation

50% of a State's STP apportionment (after TA and SPR set-asides) is to be obligated in the following areas in proportion to their relative shares of the State's population--

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/stp.cfm


Urbanized areas with population greater than 200,000 – This portion is to be divided among those areas based on their relative share of population, unless the Secretary approves a joint request from the State and relevant MPO(s) to use other factors.

Areas with population greater than 5,000 but no more than 200,000 – Projects in these areas are to be identified for funding by the State in consultation with regional planning organizations, if any.

Areas with population of 5,000 or less

The remaining 50% may be used in any area of the State.

Federal share: Determined in accordance with 23 USC 120, including a special rate for certain safety projects and a new provision for increased Federal share for projects incorporating Innovative Project Delivery. Exceptions to 23 USC 120 are provided for certain freight projects, workforce development, training, and education activities, and Appalachian development highway system projects. (See "Federal Share" fact sheet).

Eligible activities

STP eligibilities are continued, with some additions and modifications. Eligibilities are described below, with changes emphasized:

Construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, restoration, preservation, or operational improvements for highways, including designated routes of the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) and local access roads under 40 USC 14501.

Replacement, rehabilitation, preservation, protection, and anti-icing/deicing for bridges and tunnels on any public road, including construction or reconstruction necessary to accommodate other modes.

Construction of new bridges and tunnels on a Federal-aid highway. Inspection and evaluation of bridges, tunnels and other highway assets as well as

training for bridge and tunnel inspectors. Capital costs for transit projects eligible for assistance under chapter 53 of title 49,

including vehicles and facilities used to provide intercity passenger bus service. Carpool projects, fringe and corridor parking facilities and programs, including electric

and natural gas vehicle charging infrastructure, bicycle transportation and pedestrian walkways, and ADA sidewalk modification.

Highway and transit safety infrastructure improvements and programs, installation of safety barriers and nets on bridges, hazard eliminations, mitigation of hazards caused by wildlife, railway-highway grade crossings.

Highway and transit research, development, technology transfer. Capital and operating costs for traffic monitoring, management and control facilities and

programs, including advanced truck stop electrification. Surface transportation planning.


Transportation alternatives --newly defined, includes most transportation enhancement eligibilities. [See separate "Transportation Alternatives" fact sheet]

Transportation control measures. Development and establishment of management systems. Environmental mitigation efforts (as under National Highway Performance Program). Intersections with high accident rates or levels of congestion. Infrastructure-based ITS capital improvements. Environmental restoration and pollution abatement. Control of noxious weeds and establishment of native species. Congestion pricing projects and strategies, including electric toll collection and travel

demand management strategies and programs. Recreational trails projects. Construction of ferry boats and terminals. Border infrastructure projects. Truck parking facilities. Development and implementation of State asset management plan for the NHS, and

similar activities related to the development and implementation of a performance based management program for other public roads.

Surface transportation infrastructure modifications within port terminal boundaries, only if necessary to facilitate direct intermodal interchange, transfer, and access into and out of the port.

Construction and operational improvements for a minor collector in the same corridor and in proximity to an NHS route if the improvement is more cost-effective (as determined by a benefit-cost analysis) than an NHS improvement and will enhance NHS level of service and regional traffic flow.z

Workforce development, training, and education activities are also an eligible use of STP funds.

[§1109; 23 USC 504(e)]

Location of Projects

In general, STP projects may not be on local or rural minor collectors. However, there are a number of exceptions to this requirement. A State may use up to 15% of its rural suballocation on minor collectors. Other exceptions include: ADHS local access roads, bridge and tunnel replacement and rehabilitation (not new construction), bridge and tunnel inspection, carpool projects, fringe/corridor parking facilities, bike/pedestrian walkways, safety infrastructure, Transportation Alternatives, recreational trails, port terminal modifications, and minor collectors in NHS corridors.

Program features

Off-system bridges


States are required to obligate a portion of funds (not from suballocated amounts) for bridges not on Federal-aid highways (off-system bridges). The amount is to be not less than 15% of the State's FY 2009 Bridge Program apportionment. The Secretary, after consultation with State and local officials, may reduce a State's set-aside requirement if the State has insufficient off-system bridge needs.

Credit for off-system bridges -- For projects to replace or rehabilitate deficient off-system bridges funded wholly by State/local sources, any amounts spent post-enactment that are in excess of 20% of project costs may be credited to the non-Federal share of eligible bridge projects in the State.

Rural minor collectors

Special rule allows States to use up to 15% of funds suballocated for areas with a population of 5,000 or less on rural minor collectors. The Secretary may suspend permission if the State is using the authority excessively.

Bridge and tunnel inspection standards

If a State is in noncompliance with bridge/tunnel inspection standards established by the Secretary, a portion of STP funds must be used to correct the problem. [§1111; 23 USC 144(h)(5)]

Performance

The STP supports national performance goals, but there are no measures tied specifically to this program.




$3,807,034

$3,807,035

$2,850,535

$493,739


TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM (TAP)

As of October, 2012

$8,576,285

Set Asides

Recreational Trails Program

$962,216

Balance of Funds

$7,614,069

50% for Use in Any Area of the State 50% Sub-allocated by FHWA based on

Urban Area Populations

To Urbanized Areas with

Populations Over 200,000

Populations

To Urban Areas with

Population of 5,001 to 200,000

Populations

To Areas with Population of

5,000 or Less

Populations

Bridgeport-Stamford = $934,829

Hartford = $985,136

New Haven = $599,521

New York–Newark = $121

Norwich-New London = $200,296

Springfield = $95,558

Worcester = $35,074

$462,760



Fact Sheet

TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM (TAP)


Program purpose

MAP-21 establishes a new program to provide for a variety of alternative transportation projects, including many that were previously eligible activities under separately funded programs. The TAP replaces the funding from pre-MAP-21 programs including Transportation Enhancements, Recreational Trails, Safe Routes to School, and several other discretionary programs, wrapping them into a single funding source.

Statutory citation(s): MAP-21 §1122; 23 USC 101, 206, 213; SAFETEA-LU §1404.

Funding features

The TAP is funded by contract authority from the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund. Funds are subject to the overall Federal-aid obligation limitation.

An amount equal to 2% of the total amount authorized from the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund for Federal-aid highways each fiscal year (FY) is to be reserved for the TAP. [23 USC 213(a)]

The national total is divided among States based on each State’s proportionate share of FY 2009 Transportation Enhancements funding.

Within each State, the amount for the TAP is set aside proportionately from the State’s National Highway Performance Program (NHPP), Surface Transportation Program (STP), Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ), and Metropolitan Planning apportionments.

Set-asides

Unless the Governor opts out in advance, an amount equal to the State’s FY 2009 Recreational Trails Program (RTP) apportionment is to be set aside from the State’s TAP funds for the RTP. See further detail below under “Program features.” [23 USC 213(f)-(g)]

Suballocation

Fifty percent of a State’s TAP apportionment (after deducting the set-aside for the RTP, if applicable) is suballocated to areas based on their relative share of the total State population, with the remaining 50 percent available for use in any area of the State. The suballocation is

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/tap.cfm


made in the same manner as for STP funds. [23 USC 213(c)] [See the Qs & As on Suballocation of Apportioned Funds for additional detail.]

Transfer of funds

A State may transfer up to 50% of its TAP funds to NHPP, STP, HSIP, CMAQ, and/or Metropolitan Planning. The amount transferred must come from the portion of TAP funds available for use anywhere in the State (no transfers of suballocated TAP funds, or funds set aside for the RTP). [§1509; 23 USC 126]

Federal share: The Federal share for most projects is determined in accordance with 23 USC 120. Federal share for projects funded from funds set aside for the RTP are determined in accordance with 23 USC 206(f).

Eligible activities

Funds may be used for projects or activities that are related to surface transportation and described in the definition of “Transportation Alternatives.” [23 USC 101(a)(29)]

Construction, planning, and design of on-road and off-road trail facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other nonmotorized forms of transportation.

Construction, planning, and design of infrastructure-related projects and systems that will provide safe routes for non-drivers, including children, older adults, and individuals with disabilities to access daily needs.

Conversion and use of abandoned railroad corridors for trails for pedestrians, bicyclists, or other nonmotorized transportation users.

Construction of turnouts, overlooks, and viewing areas. Community improvement activities, including—

o inventory, control, or removal of outdoor advertising; o historic preservation and rehabilitation of historic transportation facilities; o vegetation management practices in transportation rights-of-way to improve

roadway safety, prevent against invasive species, and provide erosion control; and

o archaeological activities relating to impacts from implementation of a transportation project eligible under 23 USC.

Any environmental mitigation activity, including pollution prevention and pollution abatement activities and mitigation to—

o address stormwater management, control, and water pollution prevention or abatement related to highway construction or due to highway runoff; or

o reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality or to restore and maintain connectivity among terrestrial or aquatic habitats.

In addition to defined Transportation Alternatives (as described above), the


The recreational trails program under 23 USC 206. The safe routes to school program under §1404 of SAFETEA–LU. Planning, designing, or constructing boulevards and other roadways largely in the right-

of-way of former Interstate System routes or other divided highways.

Workforce development, training, and education activities are also eligible uses of TAP funds. [§52004; 23 USC 504(e)]

Program features

Selection of projects

In general, TAP funds are administered by the State DOT. States administer the RTP through a designated State agency or agencies, which may or may not be the State DOT. [23 USC 206(c) and 213(f)]

TAP funds must be obligated for eligible projects submitted by eligible entities (see below) through a competitive process. [23 USC 213(c)]

Funds suballocated to urbanized areas over 200,000 must be on the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The MPO, through a competitive process, selects the projects in consultation with the State from proposed projects submitted by eligible entities. [23 USC 213(c)]

Funds suballocated to small urban areas and rural areas will be administered by the State. The State, through a competitive process, selects the projects from proposed projects submitted by eligible entities.

Eligible project sponsors

Under 23 USC 213(c)(4)(B), the eligible entities to receive TAP funds are:

local governments; regional transportation authorities; transit agencies; natural resource or public land agencies; school districts, local education agencies, or schools; tribal governments; and any other local or regional governmental entity with responsibility for oversight of

transportation or recreational trails (other than a metropolitan planning organization or a State agency) that the State determines to be eligible, consistent with the goals of subsection (c) of section 213 of title 23.

Under TAP, nonprofits are not eligible as direct grant recipients of the funds. Nonprofits are eligible to partner with any eligible entity on an eligible TAP project, if State or local requirements permit.


Treatment of projects

Projects funded under the TAP (excluding projects funded under the RTP set-aside) shall be treated as projects on a Federal-aid highway. [23 USC 213(e)]

Youth conservation corps

States and regional transportation planning agencies are encouraged to enter into contracts and cooperative agreements with qualified youth service or conservation corps to perform appropriate projects. Such contracts and cooperative agreements are exempt from some Federal-aid highway program contracting requirements. [§1524]

Recreational Trails Program

To provide for the continuation of recreational trails projects, MAP-21 requires each State to set aside a portion of its TAP funds for projects relating to recreational trails under 23 USC 206. [23 USC 213(f)-(g)]

The amount to be set aside is equal to each State’s FY 2009 RTP apportionment. 1% of the set-aside funds are to be returned for FHWA administration of the RTP. A State may opt out of this set-aside if the Governor notifies the Secretary no later than

30 days prior to the start of a fiscal year. A State opting out may not use TAP funds for RTP administrative costs for that fiscal year.

If the State does not opt out of the RTP, the RTP provisions and requirements remain unchanged.

Safe Routes to School (SRTS)

States have the option to continue eligible SRTS program activities from section 1404 of SAFETEA-LU.

States are not required to have a State SRTS coordinator but they may use TAP funds to support this position.

Documents

Connecticut’s Highway Apportionments & Fact Sheets