Page 21 - Highway Engineering Handbook Building and Rehabilitating the Infrastructure
P. 21

4                          CHAPTER ONE

                              In addition, supporting information must demonstrate that there are unique problems or
                            unusual factors involved in the use of alternatives that avoid these properties (“Avoidance
                            Alternatives”) or that the cost, social, economic, and environmental impacts, or community
                            disruption resulting from such alternatives reach extraordinary magnitudes.
                              Section 6009(a) of SAFETEA-LU made the first substantive revision to Section 4(f)
                            since its enactment in 1966. This section of SAFETEA-LU attempts to simplify the Section
                            4(f) process for projects that have only de minimis impacts on resources protected by
                            Section 4(f). Under the new provisions, once DOT determines that a transportation use of
                            a Section 4(f) resource results in a de minimis impact, analysis of avoidance alternatives
                            is waived and the Section 4(f) process is deemed complete. Guidance for determining de
                            minimis impacts to Section 4(f) resources was issued by FHWA and DOT on December 13,
                            2005. Section 6009(c) of SAFETEA-LU requires DOT to conduct a study and issue a report
                            on the implementation of these new Section 4(f) provisions. The initial study and report is
                            to address the first 3 years of its implementation.

                            Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240,
                            “ISTEA”). ISTEA was almost revolutionary in the breadth of how it looked at surface
                            transportation, and the substantive role it played in regard to metropolitan planning orga-
                            nizations, localities, and states. Covering the period 1992 through 1997, it restructured the
                            Federal Aid Highway Program, and placed the emphasis on maintenance rather than whole-
                            sale expansion of the highway network. In creating the Surface Transportation Program,
                            ISTEA brought a new level of flexibility to the planning and implementation of highway
                            and transit projects.
                            The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (Public Law 105-178, “TEA-21”).
                            Enacted on June 9, 1998, TEA-21 authorized the Federal Surface Transportation
                            Program for highways, highway safety, and transit for the 6-year period, 1998–2003, and
                            increased the authorized funding level to $218 billion from $155 million under ISTEA.
                            TEA-21 built upon ISTEA, allowing new initiatives, strengthening safety, and encour-
                            aging flexibility in how to maximize performance of the transportation system.
                            The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
                            Users of 2005 (Public Law 109-59, “SAFETEA-LU”).  SAFETEA-LU built upon both
                            ISTEA and TEA-21 included expanded programs in the areas of safety, equity, innovative
                            financing, congestion relief, mobility and productivity, efficiency, and environmental
                            stewardship. Of particular relevance to the consideration of environmental concerns affect-
                            ing the development and implementation of highway projects, it included a number of
                            changes aimed at streamlining the environmental review process. A new category of
                            “participating agencies” was added to provide state, local, and tribal agencies with a formal
                            role in the environmental review process, required that a schedule be defined for the partici-
                            pation of agencies in the project review process, established a 180-day statute of limitations
                            for lawsuits challenging federal agency approvals, allowed for broader state assumption of
                            responsibilities for categorical exclusions from environmental review, exempted the
                            Interstate System from Section 4(f) and National Historic Preservation Act requirements
                            (although individual segments may receive protection), modified the requirements for
                            determining whether the conformity of local and statewide transportation plans conform to
                            the Federal Clean Air Act, and, as previously discussed, included tightly circumscribed
                            exemptions from “Section 4(f)” requirements.

                            National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-59, Section 109 of
                            Title 23, USC).  Following the substantial completion of the Interstate System, the trans-
                            portation focus for many states shifted to congestion management and system preservation
   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26