Eric Hein, President, Preservation Action

1. Our New Transportation
Legislation
Concerns & Opportunities…

2. Erik Hein
President of Preservation Action
Registered Lobbyist
From Bucks County, PA
Who am I? Live in Columbia Heights, District of Columbia
Penn State University (B Hum.)
George Washington University (MA AMSTD, HP)
Trustee of the Committee of 100 on the Federal City, Board Member
US/ICOMOS
Former Positions and Board Service…
Historic Harrisburg Association, the Friends of the Star Barn, City of
Harrisburg, the People’s Bridge Coalition, the Broad Street Market
Corporation, AIA Pennsylvania, DC Preservation League
Membership/Marketing/Communications national non-profits
and for-profit technology companies

3. Why the
connection
between
transportation
and
preservation?
A personal
example…
Franklin Square, Philadelphia. 1895 Map, 1915 Photograph
Franklin & Vine, 2012 map & photograph same intersection.

4. H.R. 4348 (MAP-21)
27 months, $105 billion
Overview Former law, SAFETEA-LU expired September of 2009, and
was extended 10 times prior to the President signing the
new law on July 6th.

5. Transportation Enhancements (funding)
Competition for smaller amount of money
Streamlining
Exemption from NEPA review for advance acquisition
Concerns Categorical exclusion from EA’s or EIS’s in
emergencies
Categorical exclusion from EA’s or EIS’s in existing
“right-of-way”
Categorical exemption from EA’s or EIS’s less than
$5 million
Categorical exemption from EA’s or EIS’s 15% or
less federal funds (unless project over $30 million)
General calls to find other ways, processes to
expedite project delivery

6. SAFETEA-LU MAP-21
10% mandatory set- Approx $808 million for
aside for 12 eligible Transportation
Transportation activities (several
preservation related). Alternatives (redefined
Enhancements In 2010 about $886 TE), preservation still
million apportioned. eligible…BUT…
$927 million in 2011.

7. • As redefined, acquisition of historic easements
or sites, transportation museums and
Transportation scenic/historic byways are gone.
Alternatives
• Transportation Alternatives also compete with
Safe Routes to Schools and Recreational
Trails Program.

8. • TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES
‘‘(A) Construction, planning, and design of on-road and off-road trail facilities for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and other nonmotorized forms of transportation, including sidewalks, bicycle
infrastructure, pedestrian and bicycle signals, traffic calming techniques, lighting and other
safety-related infrastructure, and transportation projects to achieve compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).
‘‘(B) 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
Transportation disabilities to access daily needs.
‘‘(C) Conversion and use of abandoned railroad corridors for trails for pedestrians, bicyclists,
Alternatives or other non-motorized transportation users.
‘‘(D) Construction of turnouts, overlooks, and viewing areas.
‘‘(E) Community improvement activities, including—
‘‘(i) inventory, control, or removal of outdoor advertising;
‘‘(ii) historic preservation and rehabilitation of historic transportation facilities;
‘‘(iii) vegetation management practices in transportation rights-of-way to improve
roadway safety, prevent against invasive species, and provide erosion control;
and
‘‘(iv) archaeological activities relating to impacts from implementation of a
transportation project eligible under this title.
‘‘(F) Any environmental mitigation activity, including pollution prevention and pollution
abatement activities and mitigation to—
‘‘(i) address stormwater management, control, and water pollution prevention or
abatement related to highway construction or due to highway runoff, including
activities described in sections 133(b)(11), 328(a), and 329; or
‘‘(ii) reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality or to restore and maintain
connectivity among terrestrial or aquatic habitats.’’

9. Source: Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse

10. • Minimum of 50% of funding goes to local
Transportation entities for competitive grants
Alternatives
• States have greater flexibility on how to use the
rest – can opt out and use for highways.

11. Source: Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse

12. Pennsylvania Preservation TE Funding 1992 to 2011:
3) Scenic/historic acquisitions $4,468,000
4) Scenic/historic highway programs & welcome centers $9,146,092
Transportation 5) Landscaping and scenic beautification $126,016,403
Enhancements 6) Historic preservation $10,716,311
7) Preservation historic transportation facilities $57,774,608
8) Rail corridor preservation and trail development $68,102,531
10) Archaeological planning and research $791,795
12) Transportation museums $6,836,130
Manassas-Guth Covered Bridge; Manheim Railroad Station; Daniel Lady Farm, Gettysburg

13. Section 1302: Exemption from NEPA review for
advance acquisition
• States can purchase “real property interests” (for an
anticipated federally funded transportation project) in advance
of full NEPA reviews.
Streamlining • States must certify in writing the acquisition will not have an
adverse environmental impact and will not limit alternatives.
• Section 106 still applies
• Secretary may establish conditions
• Before federal reimbursement, NEPA must be completed
Potential Problem: Certifying in writing does not guarantee
that acquisition prior to review will not bias decisions or
limit alternatives.

14. Section 1315: Categorical exclusion from EA’s or EIS’s
in emergencies
• For reconstruction or repair of roads, highways and
bridges if in the same location, is of the same design,
capacity, and dimensions.
Streamlining • Materials are not mentioned.
• Section 106 still applies
• The Secretary is instructed to propose rules as to how
to accomplish this categorical exclusion.
Potential Problem: Depends upon rule making. “Same
design,” is a loose term – particularly without material
consideration.

15. Section 1316: Categorical exclusion from EA’s or
EIS’s in existing “right-of-way”
• Property purchased for construction or mitigation
• Roadways, bridges, interchanges, culverts, drainage,
clear zones, traffic control signage, landscaping, and
Streamlining any rest areas with direct access to a controlled access
highway
• Section 106 still applies
• Secretary is to promulgate regulations
Potential Problem: Depends entirely upon contents of
the regulations. Rights-of-way are held by DOT’s
nationwide and include historic resources.

16. Section 1317: EA and EIS exemptions for small projects
• Categorical exemption from EA’s or EIS’s less than
$5 million
Streamlining • Categorical exemption from EA’s or EIS’s 15% or
less federal funds (unless project over $30 million)
• Section 106 Still Applies
• Secretary of Transportation required to promulgate
regulations
Potential Problem: Small projects can still have a
big impact. This depends upon how the
regulations are written.

17. General calls to find other ways,
Streamlining processes to expedite project delivery
????

18. Victories:
• Preservation funding eligible
• More State/Local Opportunity
• National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106)
not specifically targeted
• 4(f) remains
Overall Losses:
• Funding for Byways, Acquisitions
• Less Money Available
• States can choose other programs
• NEPA Exemptions
• NEPA/Section 106 Coordination – exempting one
may impact the other

19. State/Local Access to Funding
Competitive grants
Rulemaking
Rulemaking is a collaborative process. COMMENT!!!
OPPORTUNITIES
2014 – The Next Transportation Bill
To do well, we will need:
Good Data…
Job Creation
Demonstrated Return on Investment
Improved Project Delivery Times
Documented Community Support

20. Cooperative Focus on
Efficient Project Delivery
Principles…
Wise use of public funds
Mutual interest in saving
places & pursuing good transportation policy