[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 89 (Monday, May 10, 1999)]
[Pages 25098-25114]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-11586]



Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-98-4370]

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21); 
Implementation for the Transportation and Community and System 
Preservation Pilot Program

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice; request for applications for Fiscal Year (FY) 2000 
Transportation and Community and System

[[Page 25099]]

Preservation (TCSP) grants; request for FY 2000 TCSP research 
proposals; request for comments on program implementation and research 


SUMMARY: This document provides guidance on section 1221 of the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), which 
established the Transportation and Community and System Preservation 
Pilot Program. The TCSP provides funding for grants and research to 
investigate and address the relationship between transportation and 
community and system preservation. The States, local governments, 
metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and other local and 
regional public agencies are eligible for discretionary grants to plan 
and implement transportation strategies which improve the efficiency of 
the transportation system, reduce environmental impacts of 
transportation, reduce the need for costly future public infrastructure 
investments, ensure efficient access to jobs, services and centers of 
trade, and examine development patterns and identify strategies to 
encourage private sector development patterns which achieve these 
goals. FY 2000 is the second year of the TCSP pilot program.
    Through the TCSP, the States, local governments, MPOs, and other 
public agencies will develop, implement and evaluate current 
preservation practices and activities that support these practices, as 
well as develop new, innovative approaches to meet the purposes of the 
TCSP grant program (see section II in preamble). Funding for the TCSP 
was authorized at $25 million per year for FY's 2000 through 2003 by 
TEA-21. The Administration's FY 2000 budget proposes to increase the 
funding for TCSP to $50 million as part of the President's Livability 
Initiative. The FHWA seeks requests for FY 2000 TCSP grants, proposals 
for FY 2000 TCSP research, and public comments from all interested 
parties regarding implementation of the TCSP program and research 
related to the program in FY 2001 and beyond.

DATES: Requests for FY 2000 grants should be received in the 
appropriate FHWA Division office by July 15, 1999. Proposals for FY 
2000 TCSP research should be received in the FHWA Office of Planning 
and Environment by September 15, 1999. Comments on program 
implementation, research needs, and priorities should be received by 
the DOT Docket Clerk on or before July 15, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Grant requests should be submitted to the FHWA Division 
Office in the State of the applicant. Division addresses and telephone 
numbers are provided in an attachment to this notice. Research 
proposals should be submitted to the Office of Human Environment, 
Planning and Environment, Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.
    Your signed, written comments on program implementation should 
refer to FHWA Docket No. 98-4370 appearing at the top of this notice 
and you should submit the comments to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT 
Dockets, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590-
0001. All comments received will be available for examination at the 
above address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt of 
comments should include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard.

Environment, Planning and Environment, (HEHE), (202) 366-0106; or S. 
Reid Alsop, Office of the Chief Counsel, HCC-31, (202) 366-1371; 
Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington DC 


Electronic Access

    Internet users may access all comments received by the U.S. DOT 
Dockets, Room PL-401, by using the universal resource locator (URL): 
http://dms.dot.gov. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each 
year. Please follow the instructions online for more information and 
    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem 
and suitable communications software from the Government Printing 
Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet 
users may reach the Federal Register's home page at: http://
www.nara.gov/fedreg and the Government Printing Office's database at: 
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara. Information is also available on the 
FHWA Web page: (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programs.html).


    Section 1221 of the TEA-21 (Pub. L. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107 (1998)) 
established the TCSP. The Department of Transportation's Strategic Plan 
(1997-2003) includes a series of goals related to safety, mobility and 
access, economic growth and trade, enhancement of communities and the 
natural environment, and national security. The TCSP pilot program 
furthers each of these goals and provides funding for grants and 
research to investigate and address the relationship between 
transportation and community and system preservation. By funding 
innovative activities at the neighborhood, local, metropolitan, 
regional, and State levels, the program is intended to increase the 
knowledge of the costs and benefits of different approaches to 
integrating transportation investments, community preservation, land 
development patterns and environmental protection. It will enable 
communities to investigate and address important relationships among 
these many factors.
    This notice includes three sections: Section I--Program Background 
and Information of Implementation of TCSP in FY 1999; Section II--
Requests for FY 2000 TCSP Grants; and Section III--Requests for FY 2000 
TCSP Research Proposals.

Section I: Program Background and Implementation of TCSP in FY 1999


    The TCSP provides funding for grants and research to investigate 
and address the relationship between transportation and community and 
system preservation. States, local governments and MPOs are eligible 
for discretionary grants to plan and implement strategies which improve 
the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce environmental 
impacts of transportation, reduce the need for costly future public 
infrastructure investments, ensure efficient access to jobs, services 
and centers of trade, and examine development patterns and identify 
strategies to encourage private sector development patterns which 
achieve these goals. Through the TCSP, States, local governments, and 
MPOs implement and evaluate current preservation practices and 
activities that support these practices, as well as develop new and 
innovative approaches. FY 2000 is the second year of the TCSP program.
    The TCSP supports high priority goals of the administration for 
transportation systems to foster sustainable communities and minimize 
greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global climate change. 
Transportation systems interact with built, social and natural systems 
to produce short and long term environmental, social equity and 
economic results. The TCSP strengthens these inter-relationships 
between transportation plans, strategies and investments and community 
development and preservation to help create sustainable communities. 

[[Page 25100]]

the context of sustainable communities, reduction of greenhouse gas 
emissions in the transportation sector is one focus for the TCSP.

FY 1999 TCSP Program Implementation Process

    The DOT established this program in cooperation with other Federal 
agencies, State, regional, and local governments. The FHWA is 
administering this program and has established a working group with 
representatives from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the 
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the Research and Special 
Programs Administration/Volpe Center (RSPA), the Office of the 
Secretary of Transportation (OST), and the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA). The working group prepared the initial design and 
implementation of this program. In the first year of the program, the 
working group gathered input through a Federal Register notice (under 
FHWA Docket No. 98-4370) (September 16, 1998, 63 FR 49632) and through 
meetings with stakeholders conducted as part of DOT's outreach 
activities following the passage of the TEA-21.
    In FY 1999, the FHWA received more than 520 Letters of Intent 
requesting TCSP funding. These requests totaled almost $400 million and 
were received from agencies in 49 States and the District of Columbia. 
To review and evaluate the Letters of Intent, the FHWA established a 
review process which included review and comments from the field staff 
of the FHWA, the FTA, and the EPA as well as a 20-person review panel 
comprised of technical program experts representing the agencies 
participating in the working group described above. The review panel 
recommended to the FHWA Administrator the applicants that were asked to 
develop full proposals for further consideration. A similar panel 
reviewed the full proposals. Information on the review process is 
included below.
    On April 26, 1999, the FHWA announced the award of 35 TCSP grants 
for FY 1999. Grants were awarded to 28 States and the District of 
Columbia. A list of the grants awarded in FY 1999 and a brief 
description of each proposal are included under Attachment I to this 

Summary of Comments to the Docket

    The September 16, 1998, Federal Register notice (63 FR 49632) 
requested comments on TCSP program implementation in FY 2000 and 
beyond. Letters from the following organizations were submitted to the 
docket (FHWA-1998-4370):

American Public Transit Association (APTA)
Metro (Portland, Oregon)
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (San Francisco, California)
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Montana Department of Transportation
NAHB Research Center
National Association of Home Builders
New York State Thruway Authority
The Trust for Public Land
Washington State Department of Transportation
Wisconsin Department of Transportation

    Most of these letters included several comments. Some comments 
responded directly to questions posed in the September 16, 1998, 
Federal Register notice, while some comments expressed other 
perspectives and concerns. Comments that respond to a question posed in 
the Federal Register notice have been presented in items numbered one 
through six in this section. Other comments have been grouped to 
provide a logical presentation and avoid repetition and are included 
under items numbered 7 though 10 in this section. Many of the comments 
received were extensive, and have been paraphrased. The complete docket 
may be viewed at the locations provided under the captions ADDRESSES 
and Electronic Access in this preamble.
1. Project Selection Criteria
    The FHWA asked whether there should be any additional weight or 
priority applied to any of the criteria for FY 2000 and beyond; and 
whether additional criteria for proposal evaluation should be added.
    Comments: Several commenters offered suggestions for factors that 
should be considered when evaluating TCSP proposals, including: 
Evidence that the applicant can effectively complete the project in a 
timely manner; whether the results could be replicated both locally and 
nationally (i.e., avoid projects that are unique to local 
circumstances); projects that have a high likelihood of success; and 
planning proposals that would lead to implementation activities. A 
commenter also suggested that TCSP proposals should be selected based 
on how well they help answer key research questions and data 
uncertainties. This commenter also proposed that the overall project 
selection could be balanced using an ``Experimental Design'' that 
provides a mix of different types of projects that focus on each of the 
key research issues.
    One commenter proposed that TCSP applications should be given 
priority based on their ability to demonstrate: Adopted regional and 
local policies that show a commitment to linking transportation 
investments with land use development; a commitment to State growth 
management requirements (such as having urban growth boundaries); and 
substantial financial commitment to local transportation investments 
that support alternative modes of travel and environmentally sensitive 
land use development. Another commenter suggested that program 
eligibility should require that proposals clearly address the link 
between land use and transportation in the preservation of the 
viability and effectiveness of the transportation system and the 
community it serves. This commenter argued that the TCSP program 
criteria and guidance, as currently written, would allow activities 
with no relation to this land use/transportation link. While supporting 
these points, another commenter added that the role transit can play in 
land use considerations should also be emphasized in program guidance.
    A commenter proposed that implementation grants in regions pursuing 
a consistent set of mutually supportive policies should be given higher 
priority and areas pursuing conflicting policies should receive lower 
priority. The following example was given for a high priority 
implementation grant: projects reinforcing established urban growth 
boundaries, which would prevent ``leapfrog'' development and the need 
to build additional highway capacity. An example of a lower priority 
project would be in an area that proposes a transit-based development 
project while simultaneously building new highway capacity in the same 
corridor without a planning study demonstrating that these actions are 
    Similar perspectives were offered by commenters who said that 
implementation grants should be awarded in areas demonstrating an 
understanding of the ``land use/transportation link'' and are currently 
applying that understanding towards transportation system and community 
preservation. These commenters proposed that priority be given to areas 
that have demonstrated a strong commitment to these principles through 
planning, public outreach, adoption of supportive land use regulations, 
and commitment of Federal, State, and local funding to these 
    Response: We concur with the comments made regarding factors that 
should be considered. With the intense

[[Page 25101]]

competition during the first round of the Letters of Intent (LOIs) 
review, the workgroup focused on proposals that could begin immediately 
upon selection, where the sponsor appeared to have the resources to 
produce a successful project, and those LOIs that would produce 
results, tools, and lessons that would be transferrable to other areas.
    Language clarifying the distinction between planning grants and 
implementation grants has been added to this notice. The FHWA will 
continue to rely on input from the FHWA, the FTA, and the EPA field 
offices to address concerns about the ``lower priority'' project 
described by the commenter in this item number 1. This type of concern 
also underscores the importance of funding only those activities that 
are consistent with the Statewide or metropolitan planning processes 
(see item number 2, ``Planning'').
    The FHWA has added information in this notice about the types of 
projects that were selected, grant and research themes for 
consideration, and abstracts of the selected grants. It is the intent 
of this pilot program to fund activities which address the interaction 
of transportation and community and system preservation. The FHWA 
believes that effectively linking land use and transportation planning 
is a principle strategy to be investigated under TCSP. However, the 
FHWA is also interested in pursuing other strategies that should also 
be developed and evaluated under TCSP.
2. Planning
    The FHWA asked how it can ensure that TCSP-funded activities 
support the existing statewide and metropolitan planning process. How 
can the FHWA support innovative activities, integrate new planning 
techniques and refocus the planning process to ensure TCSP-related 
activities are addressed? What is the best way for local governments 
and non-traditional partners to coordinate with the State and 
metropolitan planning process?
    Comments: In general, there was strong support that TCSP proposals 
should be consistent with and supported by statewide and metropolitan 
planning processes. However, several commenters expressed concern that 
the TCSP pilot could circumvent the existing statewide and metropolitan 
planning processes, and proposed that the FHWA should require all LOIs 
to include written confirmation or a letter of support from the 
applicable State or MPO that the proposed project is consistent with 
the statewide or metropolitan planning process. One commenter 
contrasted the TCSP pilot to other discretionary programs (e.g., Access 
to Jobs) that explicitly require coordination with the metropolitan 
planning process.
    Regarding the involvement of non-traditional partners, one 
commenter suggested that letters of support from these partners should 
be required as part of the LOI. A similar comment was made that a 
demonstration should be made that all appropriate parties are involved, 
including affected governments and transportation agencies, as well as 
neighborhood, business, environmental, and social interest groups.
    One commenter said that it is appropriate in the first year of the 
pilot program to award grants for projects which have not been included 
in the metropolitan or statewide transportation improvement program (23 
CFR part 450), and went on to say that beyond the first year, projects 
should be part of the metropolitan transportation planning process 
before an LOI is submitted. This commenter suggested that to meet the 
Transportation Improvement Plan(TIP)/State TIP fiscal constraint 
requirement, the TIP/STIP could note that the project is conditioned 
upon DOT's approval of the project, but establish the area's commitment 
to the project. Otherwise, this commenter added, including the project 
in the TIP/STIP becomes a pro forma activity with the decision to 
support the project coming from the Federal rather than the local 
    Two commenters supported using TCSP grants for a stand-alone phase 
of a multi-phased project that has already been partially funded.
    Response: Section II of this preamble, ``Relationship of the TCSP 
to the Transportation Planning Process,'' describes the FHWA's 
commitment to the transportation planning process that was established 
by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) 
(Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914 (1991)). Generally, the LOIs 
demonstrated coordination with the appropriate State DOTs, MPOs, and 
transit providers in the text of the LOI and some submitted letters of 
support. Also, input from the FHWA, the FTA, and the EPA's field 
offices was specifically sought on this topic because these offices are 
familiar with metropolitan and statewide planning processes and 
practices. This notice did not require States or MPOs to act as 
``clearinghouses'' for LOIs, but rather encouraged coordination and 
partnerships. The Federal Register notice for FY 2000 continues to 
emphasize that the TCSP pilot should support statewide and metropolitan 
planning processes. In addition, the notice encourages TCSP applicants 
to notify the appropriate State DOT and MPO of their application to 
further promote this coordination. Future reviews of full grant 
applications will continue to look for evidence of this support.
    As one commenter suggested, TCSP projects could be included in a 
TIP/STIP for informational purposes. If the applicant is successful in 
receiving funds through the competitive process, the project could then 
be formally incorporated into the TIP/STIP. In general, projects should 
not be included in the TIP/STIP as a pro forma activity, but should 
reflect consistency with the appropriate regional or statewide long-
range transportation plan, which has been developed in accordance with 
the requirements in the planning rule (23 CFR part 450). A single phase 
of a multi-phased project would be eligible for TCSP funds if the 
project meets the appropriate criteria. However, as noted in the FY 
1999 Federal Register notice, TCSP funds are intended to fund new and 
innovative activities, and not to be applied towards routine or ongoing 
activities that would otherwise be undertaken by the State or MPO.
3. Grants
    The FHWA asked how it can ensure improvements to a single location, 
neighborhood street, or job center provide meaningful community 
preservation impacts on the larger region. How should the FHWA balance 
grant-making between planning and implementation grants? Should there 
be a cap on the size of grants? Should land acquisition and right-of-
way purchases be funded?
    Comments: One commenter proposed that initially there should be no 
fixed percentage between grants to localities that are new to community 
preservation practices (referred to as planning grants in the FY 99 
program) and those localities that have already implemented some of 
these practices (referred to as implementation grants in the FY 1999 
program) and research, but early in the TCSP program, higher priority 
should be placed on research and evaluation in the first three years 
and equal weight on start-up and on-going grantees. In comparison, two 
commenters advocated that there be no cap on grants or a specific split 
between planning and implementation activities, but recognized that 
given the available funds, a large grant request may not be feasible. 
Another commenter supported a mix of grants, but recommended that most 
of the TCSP funds should be used

[[Page 25102]]

for grantees that are already involved in community preservation 
activities since the greatest benefits of the TCSP program will come 
from the demonstration of actual practices.
    Another commenter said that proposals for grantees already involved 
in community preservation practices should demonstrate that prior 
public information and involvement has occurred with all potentially 
affected parties and that the project has already been approved by the 
appropriate MPO. In addition to public involvement, proposals for 
larger grants should also be able to demonstrate by analysis of data 
and forecasts the expected impact of the project on the region and 
perform a benefit and cost analysis that quantifies all expected 
    Four commenters stated that land acquisition and right-of-way 
purchases should be eligible for funding. One commenter clarified that 
with the high cost of these types of activities the DOT should make 
certain that they meet all of the TCSP criteria.
    Response: Rather than setting specific limits on the types of 
grantees, the FHWA will continue to seek a range of proposals, which 
would take into consideration the category of grantee, type of project, 
geographic location, population served, and urban/suburban/ rural mix. 
One immediate goal of the pilot is to fund activities that will provide 
demonstrable results, be instructive to future applicants and 
contribute to the body of knowledge regarding the relationship between 
transportation and community and system preservation. The FHWA will 
also consider the percentage of grantees that are new to community 
preservation and those that have already begun some of these practices. 
The FHWA will use the results of evaluations of individual projects and 
research to set priorities for the program in the future. Because it is 
too early in the program for these results, in FY 2000, the FHWA is not 
setting specific priorities but offers suggestions of new areas to 
consider (see ``Strategic Priorities'' in Section II of this preamble).
    While research is an important component of the TCSP program, the 
FHWA disagrees with the comment that a majority of TCSP funds should be 
used for research, rather than for grant activities. All over the 
country, States, MPOs, local governments, and their partners are 
engaged in, or are planning to begin activities consistent with the 
TCSP objectives. The FHWA intends to use the available TCSP funds for 
grantees to test, evaluate, and share these activities. In addition, 
because TCSP requires evaluation and measurable results from grants, 
the individual projects will further the knowledge base on community 
preservation practices. As discussed under item number 5 in this 
section evaluation is an important component of each successful grant. 
Since the FHWA is interested in increasing the knowledge base, 
producing tools, and lessons which can be replicated across the 
country, projects which would produce quantitative data and forecasts 
(including benefit and cost analyses) would be reviewed favorably.
    Public involvement is a high priority in the TCSP pilot and is a 
fundamental component of the metropolitan and statewide planning 
process. To the extent that TCSP proposals implement or are linked to 
the transportation planning process, these proposals should receive 
adequate public involvement (including the involvement of non-
traditional partners). The involvement and participation of non-
traditional partners was a priority for all grants that were submitted 
in FY 1999.
    Right-of-way and land acquisition are currently eligible activities 
within the context of a project or program that meets the TCSP 
criteria. As stand-alone activities, they would still need to meet the 
appropriate criteria.
4. Project Timeliness
    The FHWA asked how important the time line should be for 
implementation of projects in evaluation of proposals.
    Comments: Some commenters thought timeliness was a very important 
consideration in grant selections, while others thought it should not 
be a primary concern. One commenter replied that timeliness of grants 
to States, local governments, and MPOs that have already initiated 
community preservation programs and policies is less important than for 
other applicants because public involvement and benefits and costs may 
have already been estimated in a prior planning study. The commenter 
also stated that timing is less important for grantees that are just 
beginning preservation practices since a primary purpose of TCSP 
planning grants is to provide the opportunity for ``learning by doing'' 
through integration of transportation, land use, community development, 
and environmental planning. In comparison, another commenter stated 
that timing is important for grants to recipients that have not yet 
initiated community preservation programs and policies. A third 
commenter stated that timely implementation is very important and 
should be used as a mandatory criterion for the program, adding that 
grant awards should only be made if results are available to impact the 
next transportation authorization bill in 2003. Another commenter 
agreed that timely implementation should be used as a mandatory 
criterion for the program, and that awards should only be made if the 
grantee can show it is ready to implement the project in the year the 
grant is made.
    Response: The FHWA agrees with the commenters that timeliness of 
the projects is important and should be a consideration in grant 
selection. The FHWA will look at the applicant's ability to carry out 
the TCSP proposal in a timely fashion and produce results that could be 
shared nationally.
5. Evaluation of Projects
    The FHWA asked how project sponsors can effectively evaluate the 
results of activities. How can the results of individual project 
evaluations be used to evaluate the overall impacts of TCSP?
    Comments: One commenter responded that collecting the appropriate 
data and analyzing complex relationships for evaluation purposes can be 
expensive, and that the level of resources devoted to evaluation will 
vary depending on the type of project. At a minimum, the desired 
results of the project should be defined in terms of travel behavior, 
land use, and community design and amenities. A means of measuring 
whether these results have been achieved should be included in the 
evaluation plan. A recommendation was made that a certain percentage of 
projects be evaluated by an independent party, preferably by an 
academic institution, adding that since the funding for research and 
evaluation is limited, it may be useful to focus these activities at a 
few centers, with each center specializing on one specific type of 
project or research issue. Two other commenters proposed that the FHWA 
contract with independent groups or non-profit associations to assess 
the results of the program, and to inform the reauthorization process 
in 2003.
    Another commenter was concerned about the TCSP's emphasis on 
performance measures because this is an area of much debate and 
practical examples are difficult to identify and implement. This 
commenter stated that the major focus of the TCSP program should be on 
achieving the primary objectives for which the program was created and 
not directing a disproportionate share of limited TCSP funds to 
measuring outcomes, adding that project evaluation will be determined 
in part by the objectives of a particular project which may be

[[Page 25103]]

difficult to measure with quantitative measures or analytical 
procedures. Ultimately, this commenter argued, the first few years of 
the program will reveal how projects can be deemed successful or not.
    Response: The FHWA agrees with the commenters above which stated 
that evaluation was very important to TCSP. The FHWA is working with 
the DOT's Volpe National Transportation Systems Center and an 
independent consulting firm to evaluate the TCSP program, during the 
time frame of TEA-21. Furthermore, detailed guidance on evaluating 
individual grants has been provided to FY 1999 TCSP grantees and is 
electronically available on the website www.fhwa.dot.gov. The FHWA does 
not anticipate that an appropriate project evaluation would use a 
significant portion of project funding.
    Since the TCSP program is a discretionary pilot that seeks to 
encourage innovation and new strategies that go beyond traditional 
transportation programs, it is incumbent on the FHWA to ensure that 
appropriate evaluations are conducted to determine the effectiveness of 
the strategies tested. Measurements should be reasonable based on the 
objectives of the project and the need to inform future proposals and 
funding decisions. The FHWA agrees that evaluation should be 
appropriate and meaningful for guiding future funding decisions and 
increasing our knowledge base about the interaction of transportation 
and community and system preservation. The TCSP is a small pilot 
program to develop new, effective strategies that can then be used 
through regular transportation and land use programs. It is not 
intended to implement preservation activities nationwide. Therefore, 
the evaluation of strategies tested under TCSP is a principle outcome 
of the TCSP activities.
6. Research
    The FHWA asked what gaps currently exist in our knowledge of 
transportation and community preservation practices. What experience--
both good and bad--do we have with work in this field? What tools do 
practitioners need to achieve the integration of these issues in the 
transportation planning process and in project implementation?
    Comments: One commenter noted that by reducing the cost of living 
and working outside central cities, U.S. investment in urban and rural 
interstate highways has been a major influence on the growth of suburbs 
and low density residential development. As urban population and 
congestion has grown, transportation investment has improved access to 
the suburbs, which in turn has encouraged decentralized, sometimes 
specialized, employment sub-centers. More is known about the impact of 
transportation investment on land use than the impact of land use 
patterns on transportation modes. This commenter also added that for a 
variety of reasons, continued transportation investment in new highway 
capacity, subsidizing alternative modes, zoning/growth management, and 
neotraditional planning have been the major policy approaches that have 
been adopted or pursued. There are very few examples where such 
programs have been in place long enough to determine cause-effect 
relationships. Nor have appropriate data always been gathered to 
develop solid estimates and forecasts of the impact of specific 
policies. This commenter said the TCSP program is an excellent 
opportunity to conduct research that would begin to determine the 
cause-effect relationships of these investments and policy approaches, 
and proposed the following research questions:
    (a) What specific factors cause some people to leave cities and the 
suburbs to live in the rural fringe when simultaneously other persons 
choose to relocate in renewed urban areas to take advantage of urban 
    (b) Is there a ``self-selection'' bias that needs to be accounted 
for in evaluating the relationship between population densities, urban 
form, and transportation behavior? Is the apparent average travel time 
of approximately one hour per day masking the real differences in 
travel time that is occurring? What are the impacts of current 
congestion management and environmental protection policies on travel?
    (c) The rule of thumb is that commute times to work have remained 
roughly unchanged over time at about 20-25 minutes. Are people 
adjusting their lifestyles to maintain relatively constant travel 
times? Similarly, do people have a roughly constant ``travel time 
budget'' of roughly one hour per day for all travel, or is it 
different, in different geographic regions? If so, how important is it 
to relieve congestion? Is there an opportunity to lay the foundation to 
identify differences in ``travel time budgets'' in different regions of 
the U.S.? What are the characteristics of those who travel less (or 
more) than these apparent constants?
    (d) The intent of urban growth boundaries is to encourage high 
densities and minimize urban/suburban sprawl. In some instances, this 
strategy to contain urban sprawl is being weakened by smaller urbanized 
areas (within one hour commuting) seeking economic development in their 
jurisdiction. In what circumstances is this desirable? What are 
effective policies to limit undesirable outcomes. What opportunities 
are there to correct mispricing?
    One commenter found that the FY 1999 Federal Register notice placed 
an emphasis on urban growth boundaries as a growth management tool, but 
argued that the successes of this tool are limited, and at best not 
very well understood. This commenter felt that analyses of the 
relationship among urban growth boundaries, highway planning, mass 
transit approaches, and housing affordability are needed before more 
real-world experimentation with this tool is conducted, and encouraged 
the FHWA to devote a significant portion of TCSP funds to research the 
effectiveness of land use control policies such as urban growth 
boundaries. This commenter urged the FHWA to direct TCSP funding toward 
evaluating current land use-air quality models and creating new models, 
as well as the relationship between highway expansion, land development 
patterns, and air quality.
    Response: The FHWA agrees with the commenters that there is much to 
be learned about how to create livable communities. In section II of 
this preamble on strategic priorities and research for the FY 2000 
TCSP, the FHWA requests grants and research to begin to address these 
7. Eligible Grant Recipients
    Comments: One commenter encouraged the FHWA to allow non-
governmental entities to apply for implementation grants to provide 
maximum flexibility to this new program. Another commenter said that 
given the intent of the TCSP program (to address the relationship 
between transportation and community and system preservation) it is 
important that all entities with responsibility for the transportation 
system be eligible to receive funding. This commenter recommended that 
toll authorities and agencies be added to the list of eligible 
recipients for this program particularly since toll authorities provide 
transportation services that would be provided by the department of 
transportation in another State.
    Response: Eligible grant recipients were established by section 
1221 of TEA-21. The September 16, 1998, Federal Register notice further 
clarified the legislative language by providing the following examples 
of units of local government: Towns, cities, public transit agencies, 
air resources boards, school boards, and park districts. If the toll 
authority is recognized by the State

[[Page 25104]]

as a unit of local government, then it is an eligible recipient for 
TCSP grant funds. Non-governmental entities are encouraged to form 
partnerships with eligible grant recipients as the project sponsor.
8. Local Matching Funds/Use of Other Federal Funds
    Comments: One commenter observed that although the program 
encourages local matching funds, there is no requirement for a local 
match. This commenter advocated that local communities would take more 
ownership of projects that require a firm match of funds generated at 
the community level, and suggested a mandatory match ratio of 10 to 20 
percent of local funds, with a related 80 to 90 percent of Federal 
funds. According to this commenter, the local match could come from 
local or statewide nonprofit groups or local, regional, or State 
governmental entities. Other commenters supported a local match 
requirement, and added that investment of other Federal funds 
(including transportation funds authorized under TEA-21, as well as 
Federal grants for Housing and Clean Water) would also demonstrate 
local commitment.
    Response: The September 16, 1998, Federal Register notice, under 
``Priorities for all Grants'' stated that applications for grants will 
be evaluated, among other factors, on a demonstrated commitment of non-
Federal resources. As the commenter correctly stated, matching funds 
were not required. However, TEA-21 directs the Secretary to give 
priority to applicants that demonstrate a commitment of non-Federal 
resources to the proposed project. The FHWA agrees that providing local 
matching funds demonstrates a stronger commitment at the local level. 
In response to the comment regarding the use of Federal funds to 
demonstrate local commitment, the FHWA also considers this to be a 
demonstration of commitment. A number of successful TCSP applicants in 
FY 1999 combined grant resources from other FHWA, FTA, EPA and the 
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs to support an innovative 
project. However, since the TCSP funds are intended to be used for 
innovative activities, we did not review favorably proposals that could 
be funded with other traditional sources of funds.
9. Urban Versus Rural Emphasis
    Comments: One commenter found that the FY 1999 Federal Register 
notice showed a bias toward larger metropolitan areas, noting that 
smaller metropolitan areas are under growth pressures and could also 
benefit from the TCSP pilot program. The suggestion was made that the 
next solicitation for projects should use a broader range of examples 
of potential projects to include both rural and small metropolitan 
areas. In contrast, another commenter suggested that the TCSP program 
should focus on urban areas, because those areas experience the most 
intense pressure involving land use, transportation and community 
    Response: The TCSP program is applicable in a wide variety of 
settings where communities are trying to address the integration of 
transportation and community and system preservation, and that TCSP 
funds are equally applicable in urban, suburban, and rural areas. As 
noted in this preamble, the FHWA will continue to seek a range of 
proposals, which would take into consideration the type of project, 
geographic location, and a mix of urban, suburban, and rural settings.
10. Federal Involvement in Local Land Use Actions.
    Comments: One commenter claimed that through the TCSP program, the 
FHWA is engaging in local land uses issues where historically local 
governments and the electorate have made decisions. This commenter 
expressed concern that the TCSP pilot would provide a precedent by 
providing Federal funds to governmental entities and non-governmental 
groups to develop and adopt certain land use policies and restrictions.
    Response: The FHWA has no intention of using the TCSP pilot to 
involve itself in local land use decisions. The FHWA is interested in 
promoting and funding sound, yet innovative planning that 
simultaneously considers transportation and community and system 
preservation in the long-term. The FHWA strongly supports the statewide 
and metropolitan planning process that was created by the ISTEA, and 
relies on States and MPOs to use these processes, agency partnerships, 
and public involvement activities to identify proposals that would be 
eligible for TCSP funds.
11. Review Process
    Comments: One commenter strongly supported a joint review and 
approval process by the FHWA and the FTA.
    Response: An interagency work group comprised of the FHWA, the FTA, 
the FRA, the OST, the RSPA, and the EPA has reviewed all of the FY 1999 
letters of intent and full grant applications for the TCSP pilot. 
Participation has occurred at the field level (Regional and Division/
State offices) as well as from each agency's headquarters office. Final 
decisions have been made by the FHWA Administrator based on the 
recommendations of this coordinated, interagency partnership.

Information From the Technical Review Panel

    A 20-person panel including technical program experts in highway, 
transit, environment, railroad and planning reviewed the FY 1999 
Letters of Intent and grant proposals for TCSP. The feedback from the 
interdisciplinary experts that participated on the review panel on the 
FY 1999 TCSP applications will be helpful to those developing proposals 
for FY 2000. The panel used the criteria that were established in 
section 1221 of TEA-21 and included in the Federal Register notice 
(September 16, 1998, 63 FR 49632). In addition, the panel looked for 
innovative strategies to meet the TCSP goals and geographic and 
population diversity to include proposals to address urban, suburban, 
rural, and disadvantaged populations. The panel noted that the more 
than 520 LOI's submitted were worthwhile projects but that because of 
funding limitations, it was necessary to identify only a very small 
number that best met the purposes of the pilot program. The following 
information from the panel discussions may be helpful to those 
applicants that were not selected in FY 1999, as well as for those 
applying in FY 2000:
    (a) Purposes of the TCSP: Section 1221 of TEA-21 identifies five 
purposes for TCSP projects. The purposes are broad and include 
transportation efficiency, environment, access to jobs, services, and 
centers of trade, efficient use of existing infrastructure, and land 
development patterns. A key element of TCSP is exploring the link 
between transportation and land development patterns. The panel looked 
for innovative approaches that would test and evaluate the 
effectiveness of integrating land use planning and transportation 
planning to meet the purposes of TCSP. The panel looked for proposals 
that were developed to specifically address each of these. In some 
cases, a proposal would indicate that if congestion were reduced that 
would also increase access to jobs planned in the future. The panel 
looked for more proactive solutions, such as, working with agencies and 
the private sector organizations involved in employment and jobs to 
assure that the transportation system would meet the needs for access 
to jobs. Similarly, on environmental issues, some applications

[[Page 25105]]

limited the potential impacts of their proposal to air quality issues 
rather than addressing broader human and natural environmental issues 
such as watersheds, ecosystems, habitat fragmentation, and community 
and cultural impacts.
    (b) Innovation: The TCSP is a small pilot program that is 
developing and testing new strategies that can be used by State and 
local agencies nationwide in their ongoing transportation programs. 
Funding in TCSP is not intended to implement community preservation 
practices nationwide, but to pilot test new approaches. As a pilot 
program, TCSP is an opportunity for agencies to support and encourage 
non-traditional approaches. Therefore, it may be appropriate to request 
TCSP to support a smaller innovative portion of a larger project that 
can be funded under other transportation funding. This may also help to 
increase the local matching share committed to the project which is 
also a factor in project selection. In addition, leveraging other 
Federal funds (e.g., EPA, HUD, or other highway and transit funding) as 
part of a larger project will also demonstrate local commitment to the 
    The review panel recognized that what is innovative in one area may 
not be innovative in another area and considered this in the 
evaluation. This is consistent with the legislation which seeks to 
encourage community preservation practices in areas that have not done 
this before as well as to reward and encourage localities that propose 
expanding on already successfully implemented preservation practices.
    (c) Evaluation and Results: The evaluation component of TCSP 
projects needs to demonstrate the expected results of the proposed 
activities and measure the outcomes. This is critical for this pilot 
program so that other communities can learn from and apply the lessons 
learned. Therefore, clearly stating the objectives of the projects and 
activities and the anticipated results were important in successful 
proposals. In addition, successful proposals included a schedule of 
major milestones for the project. If the project was a planning study, 
the application demonstrated the likelihood that the results or 
recommendations of the study will be implemented, by whom and when.
    (d) Partnerships: The TCSP encourages public and private 
participation in proposed projects. In addition, TCSP encourages 
including non-traditional partners on the project team. The type and 
scope of the project will determine the best mix of partners and 
whether these should include members of the general public, as well as 
environmental, community, business, and other groups. The roles and 
functions of the partners should also be explained. For example, are 
these groups to be surveyed or educated or will representatives of 
these groups serve on the project team or on an advisory group?

FY 1999 TCSP Grant Awards

    The activities and research funded under the TCSP program will 
develop, implement and evaluate transportation strategies that support 
transportation and community and system preservation practices. The 
program will demonstrate transportation strategies that incorporate the 
short- and long-term environmental, economic, and social equity effects 
to help build sustainable communities. Examples of preservation 
strategies being developed by TCSP grantees in the first year of the 
program include transportation initiatives which: integrate land use 
and transportation planning; balance economic growth, environment and 
community values; create a long range vision for a community or region; 
reuse existing infrastructure to meet the purposes of TCSP; develop 
urban, suburban and rural strategies for communities; and establish 
non-traditional partnerships to meet TCSP goals. Attachment I to this 
notice lists the grants selected for TCSP funding in FY 1999 and 
includes a brief abstract of each project.

Section II: Requests for FY 2000 TCSP Grants


    The grants and research funded under the TCSP program will develop, 
implement and evaluate transportation strategies that support 
transportation and community and system preservation practices. The 
program will demonstrate transportation strategies that incorporate 
beneficial short-and long-term environmental, economic, and social 
equity effects to help build sustainable communities.
    TCSP is included in the President's Livability Initiative. This 
initiative strengthens current Federal programs, proposes new ones to 
help create livable communities, and includes programs in the EPA, the 
HUD, the Department of Interior (DOI), the Department of Justice (DOJ) 
and other agencies in addition to the DOT (see http://
www.whitehouse.gov/CEQ/011499.html). Within the DOT, the Livability 
Initiative will help ease traffic congestion and promote community 
livability through a 15 percent proposed increase for several DOT 
programs that provide flexible support to State and local efforts to 
improve transportation and land use planning, strengthen existing 
transportation systems, and promote broader use of alternative modes of 
transportation. The Administration's Livability Agenda includes 
increased funding for mass transit, Congestion Mitigation and Air 
Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ), Transportation Enhancements, and 
TCSP. The TCSP pilot program in FY 2000 is proposed to increase from 
$25 million authorized under TEA-21 to $50 million.
    In FY 1999, the FHWA used a two-step procedure to solicit and 
select TCSP proposals. Applicants were first requested to submit brief 
LOIs. The FHWA selected a small number of applicants based on these 
LOIs to prepare full grant requests for further consideration. After 
the review of the full grant request, 35 proposals from agencies in 28 
States were selected to receive TCSP funds. In FY 2000, the FHWA has 
changed this procedure and is using a one-step process. The FHWA is no 
longer asking for LOI, but only a grant request. From the grants 
submitted on July 15, 1999, the FHWA will select those funded in 
October, 1999.
    With almost $400 million requested in FY 1999, competition for 
these funds is expected to remain high. Grants may be spent over a 
period of up to two years but no commitment can be made for second or 
subsequent years of grant awards. Thus, phased projects should stand 
alone and be capable of being implemented and producing results in each 
phase. A sample outline and format for FY 2000 TCSP grant requests is 
provided in Attachment II to this notice.

Eligible Recipients

    State agencies, metropolitan planning organizations and units of 
local governments that are recognized by a State are eligible 
recipients of TCSP grant funds. This would include towns, cities, 
public transit agencies, air resources boards, school boards, and park 
districts but not neighborhood groups or developers. While non-
governmental organizations are not eligible to receive TCSP funds under 
section 1221 of TEA-21, these organizations that have projects they 
wish to see funded under this program are encouraged to form 
partnerships with an eligible recipient as the project sponsor.
    States or MPOs may be both a project sponsor and endorse other 
activities proposed and submitted by a local government within its 
boundary. A

[[Page 25106]]

State or MPO may consider packaging related activities for submittal as 
one larger grant request.

Purposes of the TCSP Grant Program

    Activities funded under TCSP should address and integrate each of 
the purposes of the program listed below. Priority will be given to 
those proposals which most clearly and comprehensively meet and 
integrate the purposes and are most likely to produce successful 
results. How well proposed projects achieve each of these purposes will 
be a principal criterion in selecting proposals for funding. Applicants 
should develop proposals that specifically address these purposes. 
Grant proposals should address how proposed activities will meet and 
integrate all of the following:
    1. Improve the efficiency of the transportation system.
    Proposals for TCSP activities should identify, develop and evaluate 
new strategies and measures of transportation efficiency that are based 
on maximizing the use of existing community infrastructure, such as 
highways, railroads, transit systems and the built environment. 
Proposals should address the transportation system as a whole rather 
than focusing on one mode of transportation. This may include for 
example, improving the integration of various modes of travel such as 
highway, transit, pedestrian, bicycling, and rail or improving the 
efficiency of port, rail and highway connections for freight and jobs. 
Performance measures should include a focus on movement of people and 
goods and access rather than movement of automobiles, and on services 
provided rather than vehicle miles traveled.
    2. Reduce the impacts of transportation on the environment.
    Proposals for TCSP activities should explore the long-term direct 
and indirect social, economic and environmental impacts of 
transportation investments on the natural and built environment. 
Consideration of environmental factors should not be limited to air 
quality but should also address, if appropriate, ecosystems, habitat 
fragmentation, water quality as well as community and cultural issues 
such as disadvantaged populations and environmental justice. 
Performance measures should relate the results of TCSP activities to 
the larger community and regional environment and the transportation 
    3. Reduce the need for costly future public infrastructure.
    Proposals for TCSP activities should describe how they will reduce 
the need for costly future public infrastructure investment or create 
tools and techniques to measure these savings over the life cycle of 
the activities. Performance measures should include projected life 
cycle savings obtained through avoiding future investments or 
    4. Ensure efficient access to jobs, services and centers of trade.
    Proposals for TCSP activities should clearly demonstrate how they 
improve efficient, affordable access to jobs, services and centers of 
trade and address benefits for disadvantaged populations. This could 
also include the use of new technologies that increase access for 
people and businesses while reducing the need to travel. Performance 
measures should include improved access to jobs and services, and 
improved freight movements.
    5. Encourage private sector development patterns.
    Proposals for TCSP activities should identify and test effective 
strategies to encourage private sector investments that result in land 
development patterns that help meet the goals of this pilot program. 
Effectively linking land use and transportation is a key feature of 
TCSP. Performance measures should demonstrate and monitor changes in 
development patterns and private sector investment trends or 
opportunities resulting from TCSP-related activities.

Priorities for Selection of Grants

    In addition to meeting the purposes of TEA-21 discussed earlier in 
this preamble, applications for grants will be evaluated based on the 
following factors:
    a. A demonstrated commitment of non-Federal resources. Although 
matching funds are not required, priority will be given to projects 
which leverage non-Federal funds and take advantage of in-kind 
contributions such as maintenance agreements, land donations and 
volunteer time. The contribution of local funds and resources for a 
project demonstrates local commitment to a project and increases the 
likelihood that it will be fully implemented. In addition to non-
Federal funds, grantees are encouraged to pursue other Federal 
resources to support Livability Initiatives such as Transportation 
Enhancement, Congestion Management and Air Quality funds, as well as 
HUD, EPA, DOI and other programs. A description of the President's 
Livability Initiative can be found on the White House Web site 
(http:www.whitehouse.gov/CEQ/011499.html) and click on ``Virtual 
    b. An evaluation component. The plans to evaluate the project's 
objectives and outcomes is a key element of the grant proposal. The 
evaluation plan should include major milestones and deliverables for 
the project. See the discussion on Evaluation in this section.
    c. An equitable distribution of grants with respect to a diversity 
of populations. The FHWA will also be ensuring the equitable 
distribution of funds to geographic regions, including an appropriate 
mix of rural, suburban and urban activities. Applicants should describe 
the populations that will be served by the project, including 
disadvantaged populations.
    d. Demonstrated commitment to public and private involvement 
including the participation of non-traditional partners in the project 
team. Such partners might include public utility operators, social 
services agencies, community groups, environmental organizations, non-
profit organizations, public health agencies, private land development 
organizations and real estate investors. The TCSP also envisions non-
traditional partners working on the project team and help develop the 
assumptions and scenarios. This approach would be broader than public 
involvement processes where transportation professionals prepare 
projects, scenarios and assumptions and present these in public forums 
for review and comment. In the proposal, applicants should describe the 
role and commitments of their partners.

Category of Grantee

    The TCSP was intended to support localities which have already 
begun some preservation practices and to encourage those areas that are 
just starting. The legislation referred to grants to these types of 
grantees as implementation grants and planning grants, respectively. 
These terms proved to be confusing to applicants in FY 1999 because 
they are common terms used in transportation projects. Many interpreted 
the terms to describe the activities conducted under a specific grant 
proposal rather than describing the community preservation activities 
of the grantee. Therefore, in FY 2000 the FHWA is asking grant 
applicants to identify themselves as either: (a) grantees that are just 
beginning to start community preservation practices, or (b) grantees 
that have already initiated transportation related community 
preservation programs and policies. This later category would include 
grantees who have coordinated with State and locally adopted 
preservation and development plans; integrated transportation and 
community and system preservation practices; promoted investments in 

[[Page 25107]]

infrastructure and transportation activities that minimize adverse 
environmental impacts and lower total life cycle costs; or encouraged 
private sector investments and innovative strategies that address the 
purposes of the TCSP program.

Eligible Activities

    Activities eligible for TCSP funding include activities eligible 
for Federal highway and transit funding (title 23, U.S.C., or Chapter 
53 of title 49, U.S.C.) or other activities determined by the Secretary 
to be appropriate. This allows a broad range of transportation 
activities to be funded. Grants will be awarded for new and innovative 
transportation activities that meet the purposes of the TCSP program, 
but remain unfunded under the current Federal-aid program.

Strategic Priorities for FY 2000 TCSP

    Grants will be awarded for activities that meet the purposes of the 
program described above and are innovative. The goal of the TCSP is to 
develop a broad range of strategies for urban, suburban and rural 
communities to help promote liveable communities through transportation 
investments and operations. The legislative language that created TCSP 
is general and provides States, MPOs and local agencies flexibility to 
create innovative approaches to addressing the goals. As the program 
evolves over the next four years, the FHWA will use individual project 
evaluations conducted by grantees, the results of research, and overall 
program evaluation to determine the strategic priorities for TCSP. This 
information is not yet available since this is the first year of the 
program and grants were just recently awarded. Therefore, in the second 
year of the program, rather than setting specific strategic priorities, 
the FHWA is providing information on the proposals funded in FY 1999 
and several suggestions to prospective applicants of areas that are of 
interest to the FHWA. The FHWA continues to seek additional strategies 
that are innovative and can be replicated by others. Applicants should 
highlight innovative and unique aspects of their proposals, and how the 
results of their proposal will further the purposes of the TCSP.
    Examples of preservation strategies being developed by TCSP 
grantees in the first year of the program include transportation 
initiatives which: Integrate land use and transportation planning; 
balance economic growth, environment and community values; create a 
long range vision for a community or region; reuse existing 
infrastructure to meet the purposes of TCSP; develop urban, suburban 
and rural strategies for communities; and establish non-traditional 
partnerships to meet TCSP goals. A common theme in the proposals was 
that the objectives were to use transportation solutions in unique ways 
to help to meet long-term community goals rather than to only address 
current mobility needs. Applicants should not seek to duplicate the 
strategies being evaluated in FY 1999 unless there is a significant 
change in the scope, application, or results of the strategy.
    The FHWA is also interested in proposals which measure the results 
and broad impacts on communities of current preservation practices 
including urban growth boundaries, infill development, and land use 
changes. This suggestion is also included in the request for research 
proposals below as an opportunity for an independent assessment of the 
outcomes of current preservation practices. Other areas that may be 
considered include integrating community health and safety goals with 
transportation to promote livable communities; planning or implementing 
regional and local strategies to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions; 
using technology and communications that provide people and businesses 
with improved access to goods and services to promote livable 
communities; and enhancing intermodal and freight access to promote 
economic growth and access to jobs in communities.
    The FHWA is particularly interested in supporting projects that are 
ready to begin and have plans to collect and document results that can 
be shared with others quickly and successfully. The proposal should 
highlight when the proposal would be initiated and when results are 


    Every proposal funded under the grant program should include a 
description of the applicant's plans for monitoring, evaluation and 
analysis of the grant activity, and for providing the results of this 
analysis to the FHWA. This information is necessary to provide an 
opportunity for the DOT, States, MPOs, and local governments to learn 
more about the practical implications of integrating land development, 
transportation, and environmental decisionmaking. The grant request may 
include funding for travel for one representative to attend two 
national workshops to present the plans, status, and results of the 
    The measures used to evaluate project results should be based on 
the goals and objectives of the project. In addition to individual 
project evaluations, an overall program evaluation will be conducted by 
the FHWA under the research component of the program described in 
Section III of this notice.
    Developing measures to determine the results of the projects is 
difficult and there is no general consensus on operative measures. A 
resource guide on program evaluation for TCSP projects is available on 
the FHWA Web page (http://tcsp-hwa.volpe.dot.gov/index.html). Methods 
to measure and evaluate current and future performance may include, for 
    1. Quantitative assessments such as measurement of changes in 
traffic flow and mode choice (e.g., increased pedestrian and bicycle 
traffic), environmental impacts and reduced vehicle miles of travel or 
number of trips;
    2. Analytic procedures which forecast the current and future 
impacts of projects, such as, travel demand, land development, or 
economic forecasting; or
    3. Qualitative assessment, such as, interviews, surveys, changes in 
local ordinances, or other anecdotal evidence.

Relationship of the TCSP to the Transportation Planning Process

    The TCSP will complement, improve and enhance the Statewide and MPO 
planning process created by the ISTEA, and refined by TEA-21. This 
process promotes the ongoing, cooperative and active involvement of the 
public, transportation providers, public interest groups, and State, 
metropolitan and local government agencies in the development of 
statewide and metropolitan transportation plans and improvement 
programs (23 CFR part 450).
    Grant proposals should clearly demonstrate the coordination and 
consistency with appropriate statewide and metropolitan transportation 
planning processes. TCSP applicants are encouraged to notify the 
appropriate State DOT and MPO of their application to ensure this 
coordination. In addition, the FHWA will post the list of FY 2000 
applications and titles of the proposals on its Web site as soon as it 
is available.
    The DOT fully supports this planning process, which has brought 
diverse constituencies and government agencies together, and views the 
TCSP activities as a logical step in the continuing improvement of 
transportation planning at the State and regional level. The TCSP can 
help broaden the scope and impact of the planning process to better 
integrate land development planning, environmental goals and 
objectives, economic development, social equity considerations, and 
other private sector

[[Page 25108]]

activities. The integration of interest groups, investors and 
developers through partnering with government applicants is a goal of 
the program. The TCSP activities also consider incorporation of much 
longer planning horizons and consider the impacts on future 
    Activities funded by this program may be used to test or implement 
new, innovative planning methods and programs that significantly 
enhance the existing statewide and MPO transportation planning 
processes. The TCSP funds are intended to leverage new transportation 
and community preservation initiatives rather than to fund the ongoing 
planning activities of States and MPOs. The TCSP-funded activities 
should demonstrate coordination with the State or MPO to ensure the 
planning process is not circumvented. In addition, activities should 
encourage and improve public involvement in the overall planning 
process as well as in the individual project.
    Construction projects funded by the TCSP will ultimately be 
included in an approved State or MPO TIP. The TCSP funds should not be 
requested for projects that have already been scheduled for funding and 
are in the current State or MPO TIP. Highway and transit projects which 
either use Federal funds or require Federal approvals, and are in air 
quality nonattainment or maintenance areas, should be included in an 
air quality conformity analysis required as part of the transportation 
planning process. Because TCSP projects may target improved air quality 
as part of their broader goals, documentation of the beneficial air 
quality impacts of the project will be important.
    Non-construction activities funded by the TCSP, such as the 
development of regional plans and policies, project evaluations and 
land development code changes, may not need to appear in a statewide or 
MPO TIP, but should still have the support or endorsement of the State 
or MPO. Planning activities funded by TCSP should be reflected in the 
metropolitan area's Unified Planning Work Program. Non-construction 
activities may result in changes to existing State and MPO plans and, 
therefore, need coordination with other jurisdictions within a 
metropolitan region or State.

Schedule and Administrative Processes for FY 2000 Applications

    There are several options for the administration of grants under 
TCSP. The FHWA has established financial management systems with the 
State Departments of Transportation and anticipates that most TCSP 
grants will be channeled through this established process. However, if 
another process such as a cooperative agreement or grant through 
another eligible agency (e.g., a public transit agency) is preferred, 
the applicant can work with the appropriate FHWA Division Office to 
develop a different funding mechanism.
    An applicant should send four (4) printed copies and a diskette 
with a file (optional, as described in Attachment II of this notice) of 
the TCSP grant request to the FHWA Division Office in the State in 
which the project is located by July 15, 1999. Applicants should note 
that the FHWA is not requesting the 4-page LOI's that were used for the 
FY 1999 selection process. The FHWA will use input from field staff and 
an interagency technical review panel similar to the process used in FY 
1999 to evaluate proposals that will be funded. Questions about the 
grant program should be directed to the FHWA Division Office in the 
State in which the applicant is located. The time line for FY 2000 
applications for TCSP and a proposed time line for FY 2000 follows:

                       FY 2000 Time Line for TCSP
            TCSP milestones                          FY 2000
Issue Federal Register Notice Request    May 1999.
 for FY 2000 Grants, Research
 proposals, and comments.
Grant requests and comments due to FHWA  July 15, 1999.
 Division Offices.
Research proposals due to FHWA.........  Sept. 15, 1999.
Grants awarded.........................  Oct. 1999.
Research projects awarded..............  Jan. 2000.

Section III: Requests for FY 2000 TCSP Research Proposals


    The TCSP includes a comprehensive research program to investigate 
the relationships between transportation, community preservation, and 
the environment, and to investigate the role of the private sector in 
shaping such relationships. The research program also includes 
monitoring, evaluation, and analysis of projects carried out under the 
grant program.

Program Evaluation and Outreach

    Program and project evaluation is an important part of the TCSP. To 
meet the purposes of the pilot program and develop strategies and 
methodologies that can be used by localities, measurable results and a 
means to disseminate this information are needed. In addition to the 
evaluation of each project conducted by the grantee, the FHWA will 
conduct an overall program evaluation combining the results of the 
grants and the research program to help set the strategic direction and 
future priorities for the TCSP. An important measure for the success of 
TCSP is the extent to which the results and best practices from the 
pilot program are used effectively by government agencies, the private 
sector, and others.
    Under the research component of TCSP, the FHWA will establish 
outreach, technical assistance, and other means to share and implement 
the results elsewhere. Current outreach plans include Federal Register 
notices, the grant workshop, the FHWA web site information, and 
participation in other conferences and meetings.

Research Program

    The goal of the research program is to build a knowledge base of 
work in this field that will enable State, regional and local 
government agencies, the private sector and neighborhood groups, 
through transportation activities, to help shape sustainable 
communities that meet current and long-term environmental, social 
equity, and economic goals. With coordination and input from its 
partners and stakeholders, the FHWA will identify and initiate needed 
research to support the purposes of the TCSP. The research program is 
integral to the TCSP, and it will support and complement the activities 
conducted through planning and implementation grants. Likewise, applied 
research activities that may be a part of a grant activity would be 
beneficial to the research program.
    This notice requests comments and suggestions on the research 
program and also solicits specific research proposals. The FHWA 
anticipates that most of the TCSP funds will be allocated for grants 
and that limited funding will be available for research. The FHWA is 
soliciting comments on the research needs to support the TCSP and will 
initiate TCSP research to meet the needs that are identified. In 
addition to FHWA conducted research under the TCSP, the FHWA is 
soliciting research proposals for consideration in funding in FY 2000. 
The research may be conducted through cooperative agreements with 
organizations, contract support, or through State, local, and MPO 
    The FHWA emphasizes that it anticipates that very limited funds 
will be available for research in FY 2000. The FHWA proposes to solicit 

[[Page 25109]]

proposals that address the following areas:
    1. Evaluation of results of current community preservation 
practices. Information is needed on the specific outcomes of current 
statewide, regional, and local community preservation practices, such 
as, green corridors, smart growth, urban growth boundaries, higher 
density development, and land use controls to improve transportation 
efficiency. Research should include both costs and benefits of these 
initiatives and performance measures.
    2. The FHWA is seeking research on the development of needed tools 
and methodologies to support decision makers. Transportation-related 
tools and analytical techniques will be enhanced to help support the 
State and local decision makers in taking a longer term view and 
balancing economic, social equity, and environmental goals.

Attachment I: FY 1999 TCSP Grant

Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot Program

Project Description Summaries


01: Municipality of Anchorage: ``Anchorage Metropolitan Area 
Transportation Study (AMATS) Community Transportation Cooperative'' 

    Re-design the public involvement program by determining the most 
effective processes and technology to empower the public, to 
facilitate communication, and to motivate the community to engage in 
meaningful dialogue in land use and transportation issues. Apply the 
new program to the Ship Creek Multimodal Transportation Plan, an 
area with controversial land use/transportation/ community 
preservation issues located adjacent to the downtown Anchorage 
Central Business District.


05: City of Tempe: ``Transit Overlay District and University Drive 
Subarea Study/Integrated Transportation Plan, Model, and Local 
Transit-Oriented Design Guidelines'' $225,000

    Complete the community-driven elements of the comprehensive 
transportation and land use plan.
    Activities include:
     A transportation subarea study and implementation plan 
for University Drive that will coordinate neighborhood goals to 
narrow/traffic calm the street while identifying strategies to 
combat a range of area transportation issues with an approach that 
emphasizes both non-SOV transportation and community redevelopment.
     Creating a transit-oriented overlay district model, 
which can be supported by neighborhoods and the development 
community. Implement on University Drive and in the NewTowN service 
area. Apply to other parts of Tempe and communities.


13: San Francisco Planning Department: ``Land Use Support for the 
Mission Street Transit Corridor'' $177,000

    Develop a plan for transit-oriented development in the Mission 
Street Transit Corridor and its diverse mix of mostly medium- and 
low-income residents, who depend on transit for journey-to-work 
trips. Prepare a transit-oriented land use plan for the Balboa Park 
Station at the southern end of the corridor and use as a model for 
how transit-oriented development can increase the city's share of 
new mixed-use residential and commercial development, how it can 
strengthen land use and transit links, how it can increase transit 
use, how it can encourage mixed-use residential and commercial 
infill sensitive to neighborhoods, how it can refocus the city's 
neighborhoods towards transit and away from the automobile, and how 
it can ease some of the burdens placed on private-sector 

45: City of Escalon: ``Escalon High School Linkage Project'' 

    Link the community high school with a variety of land uses via 
two separate alternative transportation corridors: (1) The Southern 
Link--A pedestrian plaza, roadside park and woonerf on a portion of 
SR-120 abandoned as a result of highway realignment; and (2) The 
Northern Link--A Class-I bicycle lane along Miller Avenue providing 
a direct link between the high school and community center and a 
bicycle/pedestrian activated crossing signal. Mitigate the impacts 
associated with the widen roadways. Populations benefitting from the 
project include both students and senior citizens.

64: Mono County: ``Lee Vining Community Planning Project'' $182,000

    Create a consensus-driven vision to provide transportation and 
land-use planning guidance to a small town that serves as a main 
gateway to Yosemite National Park. Identify the community's role in 
balancing the need for tourism with the preservation of community 
character and quality of life. Balance the multiple needs and users 
who depend on a major state highway facility serving as a local Main 
Street. Identify mitigation opportunities for seasonal traffic 
impacts in and around the park, focusing on the proper integration 
of the YARTS with Lee Vining and other communities bordering the 
park. Provide a model for intergovernmental cooperation and public 
involvement for unincorporated rural areas struggling with 
transportation and land-use issues.


01: Hartford Metropolitan Area: ``Picture It Better Together: 
Taking Transportation Goals From Policy to Reality'' $480,000

    Examine the links between transportation, land use, and economic 
development at both the neighborhood and regional level by 
researching sustainable development practices informed by local and 
regional perspectives. Identify traditional forms of circulation and 
land use patterns in three prototypical communities--one urban, one 
suburban, and one rural--then plan for integrative patterns of 
development in each. Research and form best development practices, 
business incentives, and public/private support for these strategies 
at the regional level and facilitate discussions about regional 
interdependence. Develop human-scaled land use designs at the 
neighborhood level to integrate multiple transport modes and address 
traffic conflicts.

District of Columbia

01: Metropolitan Washington Region: ``Implement Adopted 
Transportation Vision for the Metropolitan Washington: Develop 
Circulation Systems and Green Space'' $380,000

    Implement two key components of the region transportation 
vision: (1) improvements of circulation systems within the regional 
core and regional activity centers and (2) integration of green 
space into a regional greenways system. Involve key agencies, 
officials, and stakeholders and identify financial resources for 
project implementation. Design comprehensive regional programs which 
identify priority projects for implementation and encourage the 
inclusion of these projects into the region's Constrained Long Range 
Plan (CLRP) and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).


05: Gainesville Metropolitan Area: ``Develop and Apply Integrated 
Land Use and Transportation Sketch Planning Methods'' $150,000

    Develop sketch planning methods and simple model refinements to 
better estimate the effects of various land use, non-motorized 
transportation and transit strategies on travel choices and 
behavior. Develop analytical methods to post-process certain outputs 
of the traditional four-step travel demand forecasting process to 
better represent the land use-transportation connection. The goal is 
not methodological elegance but rather ease of rise and improved 
predictive power. Activity addresses all modes of travel, 
particularly as they relate to different land use characteristics 
within the metropolitan area.


01: Ada/Canyon Counties: ``Treasure Valley Futures: New Choices for 
the American West'' $510,000

    Develop an education process which defines barriers to attaining 
these goals and identifies a range of alternative choices for policy 
implementation that can be incorporated directly into the existing 
land use and transportation policy framework. The project should 
result in an increase in the number of policy decisions being made 
by agencies and other groups supporting local and regional 
objectives. The project approach is designed to work within the 
Treasure Valley's fragmented political framework and deeply held 
beliefs concerning private property rights.

[[Page 25110]]


01: Central Bluegrass Region: ``An Integrated Model for 
Transportation Planning and Context Sensitive Design'' $435,000

    Produce two linked products that will aid in realizing and 
attaining TCSP goals. Provide innovative guidance and strategies to 
aid communities in reconciling development pressures with the need 
for livable communities through the Corridor Master Planning 
Handbook. Detail the fusion of visualization software with group 
facilitation and decision techniques for purposes of promoting 
consensus across a diverse community regarding roadway improvements 
through the Visualization Guide. These tools will address local 
planning questions that arise from regional concerns and aid in 
understanding the link between them. The project focuses on the 
development challenges found in the historic Bluegrass Region of 
Kentucky and involves both traditional and non-traditional partners.


01: New Orleans Metropolitan Area: ``Transportation/Community 
Systems Optimization Through Non-Traditional Partnering and 
Infrastructure Prioritization'' $450,000

    Develop and implement various mechanisms to affect land use 
growth factors and system tools in order to guide transportation 
development, community and system preservation and regional 
metropolitan sprawl. Traditional tools and non-traditional 
approaches will be employed. Develop regional strategies and tools 
leading to a long-range plan and a map of growth/sprawl boundaries 
for a regional livability standard based on balance and 
sustainability. Develop a capital project management plan for the 
effective and efficient timing and construction of transportation 
infrastructure, and establish a framework for the control and 
monitoring of regional metropolitan sprawl. Form coalitions of 
interest groups in the region to realize the level of knowledgeable 
voter tax support to implement sustainable land use and 
transportation growth measures.


04: State of Maryland: ``Maryland Integrating Transportation and 
Smart Growth (MINTS)'' $450,000

    Use integrated Smart Growth and transportation planning 
strategies to: maintain and enhance existing communities and 
contribute to their quality of life and economic vitality; 
demonstrate how investments in transportation strategies can 
encourage well planned growth where it is desired and discourage new 
development where it is inconsistent with Smart Growth objectives; 
and use sound growth management to facilitate community 
conservation, preservation of infrastructure capacity, and ``smart'' 
transportation strategies. The project will be carried out in 2-3 
locations representing two distinct growth-management settings: (1) 
an urban community with challenges to improve the efficiency of the 
existing transportation system, to conserve the community, and to 
prompt re-development and infill development and (2) in exurban and 
suburban areas with sprawling development patterns which threaten 
rural resource protection goals, generate highway and other 
infrastructure needs, and environmental and transportation system 
efficiency issues.


05: Saginaw Metropolitan Area: ``Retrofitting Anytown, USA'' 

    Conduct a public design charrette to look at retrofitting two 
intersecting suburban corridors, making the area both pedestrian and 
transit friendly. Focus on issues of pedestrian mobility and 
accessibility, and public transit with the ``visioning'' and 
recommendations providing planning directions to local agencies and 
private enterprises to retrofit the existing auto-dominated 

12: Lansing/Tri-County Region: ``Regional Growth: Choices for Our 
Future'' $355,000

    The Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, representing 
Clinton, Eaton and Ingham Counties and the Lansing, Michigan 
metropolitan area, has initiated Regional Growth: Choices For Our 
Future to Develop a series of innovative pilot planning techniques 
which will demonstrate enhanced planning methods which may be 
readily transferred to similar efforts nationwide. Formulate 
consensus on a new land use patterns and on new policies to guide 
land use change. Evaluate and track successful implementation by 
creating a ``Sprawl Index'' and a comprehensive evaluation program 
using real cost studies and fiscal impact analysis, analysis of how 
transportation investment decisions and asset management strategies 
effect urban sprawl, gathering information on why people relocate, 
and developing monitoring measures.


06: Kansas City Metropolitan Area: ``SMART CHOICES--Options for 
Creating Quality Places'' $600,000

    The Mid-America Regional Council (MARC), project will build on 
regional and local planning efforts addressing the better 
integration of transportation investments and land use decisions. 
Provide tools specifically designed for Midwestern communities to 
promote urban and suburban development compatible with sustainable 
community design. Activities include: (1) the development of 
Transit-Oriented Development prototypes, education, and other 
implementation strategies; (2) a cost-of-development analysis that 
will provide fiscal information relative to alternative development; 
and, (3) an interactive compact disc to communicate information on 
alternative design concepts and specifications.


06: City of Laurel: ``Transportation and Community Sustainability 
Plan'' $85,000

    Develop a `Transportation and Community Sustainability Plan' for 
the City of Laurel. Activities include: (1) analyzing the traffic 
and community impacts of major transportation features; (2) 
analyzing the overall transportation system (current and planned) 
and its implications for sustainability; (3) analyzing the land use 
patterns and their contributions to the traffic situation; (4) 
analyzing the sustainability of the community's commercial core in 
the face of transportation-related threats; (5) analyzing non-
motorized travel; (6) analyzing how different assumptions in 
transportation and land use can lead to more sustainable scenarios 
for the future; and (7) creating an action plan for a more 
sustainable Laurel.

New Jersey

14: Northern New Jersey: ``Preparing Modern Intermodal Freight 
Infrastructure to Support Brownfield Economic Redevelopment'' 

    Facilitate the redevelopment of abandoned industrial brownfield 
sites by freight related businesses at the port, airport, and rail 
terminals in northern New Jersey. Leverage statewide and regional 
resources to overcome current constraints affecting brownfield 
redevelopment. Conduct a market analysis, compile an inventory of 
promising brownfield sites, perform outreach to communities and 
carry out detailed case studies. Completed plan will address needed 
transportation access to brownfield sites and effectively market the 
sites for freight related activities and provide new employment 
opportunities for urban residents, avert inefficient sprawl, reduce 
the volume of trucks on regional roads and safeguard the 

34: State of New Jersey: ``Transit-friendly Communities for New 
Jersey'' $535,000

    Work with diverse community partners to develop specific ways 
that New Jersey towns can become more ``transit friendly,'' by 
building on both NJT's initiatives to make train stations themselves 
``passenger friendly'' and on statewide ``smart growth'' initiatives 
to reduce sprawl and encourage new development within walking 
distance of transit stations. Develop educational workshops, 
technical assistance and demonstration projects in four to six 
communities to shape a new vision for linking train stations to 
community enhancement. Implement a series of short-term, catalytic 
demonstration projects in the districts immediately around train 
stations to spur community involvement and leverage local investment 
and participation. Maximize its relevancy to the state's diverse 
community involvement and leverage local investment and 
participation. Leverage the talents and resources of NJT's non-
profit and government partners to shape the future of communities 
around NJT stations well into the 21st Century. Develop models for 
other New Jersey communities to follow in future NJT projects. 
Ensure that communities understand how transportation investments 
can enhance the environment, create strong downtown centers, and 
improve quality of life.

[[Page 25111]]

New York

02: City of Troy: ``Waterfront Redevelopment'' $70,000

    Develop a Transportation and Land Use Study as a part of a 
redevelopment planning process for South Troy's Working Waterfront. 
Address the needs of this long underutilized waterfront and 
facilitate the area's development as an appealing and efficient 
business, residential, cultural, and recreational center. Inventory 
and analyze the existing land use pattern and transportation system, 
evaluate redevelopment alternatives, and identify and implement a 
series of compatible land use and transportation strategies and 
projects for the study area. Combine planning techniques including 
community workshops and visioning sessions, design charettes, and 
planning and architecture student involvement. Build upon 
collaborative working relationships with traditional and 
nontraditional partners including community-based, organizations and 
nonprofit agencies, as well as private, public, local, regional, 
County and State agency representatives. Develop a plan to maximize 
efficiency in transportation access while minimizing environmental 
and related impacts of the proposed redevelopment.

North Carolina

06: Research Triangle Region: ``Regional Development and Mobility 
Principles'' $450,000

    Develop strategies to change the 6-county Research Triangle 
region's current pattern of development from a conventional suburban 
expansion model to one based more on principles supportive of 
compact urban form with walkable. Activities include: A detailed 
description and analysis comparing the land use, transportation, 
fiscal and environmental implications of the preferred regional 
development pattern to the current development pattern. A 
comprehensive set of strategies composed of design and development 
standards, infrastructure policies, fiscal tools, and legislative 
authority needed to achieve the preferred development pattern. A set 
of computer visualizations and supporting explanatory material 
showing how places within the region could develop differently under 
the preferred pattern or under the current pattern. A community 
outreach and feedback effort to explain the project's work, monitor 
communities' views of the work, and revise the work to address 
community concerns.


10: Woodmere Village, Cleveland: Making Chagrin Boulevard a 
``Place'' Instead of a Dividing Road: A Greater Cleveland 
Demonstration Project in Woodmere Village, Ohio'' $195,000

    Redefining Woodmere Village, a small, predominantly African-
American suburb of Cleveland, in a highly creative manner. Create an 
environment for small town community interactions while 
simultaneously handling 26,000-36,000 ADT on its ``Main Street.'' 
Provide a local demonstration project which balances the interests 
of ``home,'' ``place'' and business with the goal of commuter 
convenience. Set the stage to adopt new zoning and land use policies 
to encourage denser, more sustainable development in the future.

12: City of Dayton: ``Tool Town'' $300,000

    Evaluate the existing buildings, transportation infrastructure, 
and utilities and the development of a schematic campus master plan 
with capital costs, an implementation schedule, and funding 
strategies. Tool Town will make more efficient use of existing 
transportation network and other infrastructure and reuse land and 
the built environment, both of which will curb additional regional 
sprawl. The effort will also create jobs that can be filled by 
Dayton residents; support the long-term viability of tooling and 
machining in our region; help tooling and machining industry compete 
globally; and retain these secure, high-paying jobs in the United 


05: Portland Metropolitan Area: ``Urban Reserve Planning for the 
Portland, Oregon Metropolitan Region'' $500,000

    Develop master planning for the area must occur before 
development begins to ensure efficient provision of services and 
infrastructure and effective environmental conservation. Help local 
governments address the difficult transportation, land-use and 
environmental challenges of the area, including: Streams on the 
recent federal listing of endangered fish; Mitigation of addition 
impacts on severe downstream flooding; Local topography that creates 
a serious challenge in transitioning from a few two-lane country 
roads to a system that can serve the expected future population.

11: Willamette Valley: ``Evaluate the Transportation Impacts of 
Possible Futures in Oregon's Willamette Valley Organization'' 

    Provide a unique, long-range, regional focus on: (1) the 
transportation consequences of continuing current land development 
patterns in the Valley; (2) the benefits possible through 
alternative, transportation-efficient development patterns that are 
based on more compact growth and urban designs that reduce reliance 
on the automobile; and (3) the benefits possible through certain 
changes in the transportation system. Focus on all current and 
future travel between the metropolitan areas, cities and towns in 
the 11,500 square mile Valley. Activities include: (1) the 
development, modeling and analysis of possible future land use and 
transportation scenarios; (2) public outreach and education; (3) 
development of recommended actions and implementation strategies to 
achieve a preferred future; and (4) development of regional 
benchmarks and a monitoring framework to track progress.


05: Centre County: ``Creating a Community-based Sustainable Future 
for I-99: A Watershed Approach'' $500,000

    Establish a collaborative, multi-municipal model interchange 
overlay district ordinance to better manage and guide development 
surrounding the 12 interchanges in Centre County of I-99 in Centre 
County and create a watershed-wide (mid-Bald Eagle watershed 
including the Spring Creek Basin), community-based collaborative 
land use and sustainability plan to meet the long-term needs of the 

08: Philadelphia Metropolitan Area: ``Implement Transit Oriented 
Development in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area: Schuylkill 
Valley Metro (SVM) Corridor Station Area Planning and 
Implementation'' $665,600

    Implement TOD principles and induce private sector investment in 
TODs by: (1) creating an innovative LEM Product that provides 
mortgage financing for housing in transit dense areas, (2) 
undertaking a region wide advocacy project to sow the seeds of 
public support for TODs, (3) producing a transit corridor-specific 
real estate market demand feasibility study that provide a greater 
level of understanding of TODs within the real estate community 
(thereby reducing the perceived risk to developers) and (4) 
preparing zoning ordinance language, to implement focused station 
area plans, that provides a supportive regulatory environment for 
TOD. Innovative activities include: (1) the proposed LEM Product; 
(2) the timing of the planning and development regulations work and 
garnering public support for TOD, well in advance of implementing a 
major transportation investment; and (3) basing the development 
controls on a corridor and station-focused real estate market study.

Rhode Island

11: City of Providence: ``Olneyville Square Inter-modal Transit 
Center'' $600,000

    Revitalize neighborhood by using transportation and intermodal 
facilities that will capitalize on an urban river, recycle 
brownfields, promote home-ownership and support small business 
development. Focus on the commercial heart of the neighborhood, 
which was once the second largest commercial area in the City, by: 
siting a public Transit Center, linking the Woonasquatucket 
Greenway/Bikeway project to the Transit Center, and re-connecting 
Olneyville Square and the Transit Center to the West Broadway 

South Carolina

01: Berkeley, Charleston, Dorchester Region: ``Development and 
Implementation of a Model Program Strategy to Link Transportation, 
Infrastructure and Land Use Planning for the Berkeley Charleston 
Dorchester Region of South Carolina'' $300,000

    Evaluate past and future growth patterns and promote sustainable 
growth in the Berkeley, Charleston, and Dorchester region, the 
Berkeley-Charleston-Dorchester Council of Governments (BCDCOG). 
Utilize satellite imagery to graphically depict growth patterns over 
twenty years in the region and using the identified patterns to 
project impacts for the future. Estimate the costs of sprawl. 
Evaluate environmental losses of growth patterns at the continued 
rate and pattern. Compile

[[Page 25112]]

alternative land use and growth pattern strategies and the identify 
techniques to encourage organized and sustainable growth. Illustrate 
the impacts and costs (in environmental losses as well as fiscal 
impacts) of particular growth patterns as experienced in the past 
twenty years, as well as to project those same impacts and costs if 
a similar pattern of growth is continued. Develop alternatives and 
recommendations to encourage smarter and more efficient growth.


01: Johnson City: ``The Land Use and Transportation Plan'' $275,000

    Integrate land use planning with transportation planning to 
increase the performance and efficiency of the transportation 
system. Adopted formal code changes to land use regulations based on 
the principles of traditional neighborhood development and transit 
oriented development. Create opportunities for intensified mixed-use 
development to occur in neighborhood nodes and permit increased 
accessibility for pedestrians, bicycles, and transit. Evaluate 
projected traffic volume and type with and without adoption of the 
new regulations. The results of the Land Use and Transportation will 
be able to be used by other communities across the State of 
Tennessee and nationally.


14: City of Houston: ``Main Street Corridor Planning and Research 
Project'' $500,000

    Develop a singular, urban vision for the eight-mile Main Street 
Corridor. Encourage transit and pedestrian-oriented development, 
improve access to the corridor, explore ground-breaking 
implementation strategies, and institute innovative evaluation 
techniques. Build partnerships among public agencies, private and 
non-profit interests as a vital component of the planning process. 
Reinforce trends toward inner city revitalization leading to a 
reduction of automobile dependency and improved air quality in the 


07: Greater Wasatch Area: ``Envision Utah'' $425,000

    Create a broadly and publicly supported Quality Growth Strategy-
a vision to protect Utah's environment, economic strength, and 
quality of life for our children. Create a replicable process for 
planning and managing rapid growth and development. Seek community 
feedback and participation to assist in the development of a 
publicly supported Quality Growth Strategy and pursuit of actual 
implementation of this strategy in the Greater Wasatch Area. Develop 
and draft final Quality Growth Strategy and pursue actual 
implementation of this strategy in the Greater Wasatch Area. Utilize 
modeling tools to assist Envision Utah in the cost and impact 
analysis of the alternative growth scenarios.


03: Charlottesville Metropolitan Area: ``Jefferson Area Eastern 
Planning Initiative'' $517,920

    Develop a new model for integrated land use/transportation 
planning and use it to achieve a regional plan which lays the 
groundwork for the community's 50-year vision. Build upon planning 
tools the PDC has developed to improve the multi-modal design of 
neighborhoods, commercial centers, and transportation corridors. 
Package as a handbook, CD-Rom, and on the Web to make it easy for 
other small urban and rural communities to use them.


02: Central Puget Sound Region: ``Transit Station Communities 
Project'' $400,000

    Use a variety of tools that will contribute to the success of 
intermodal facilities by working with citizens, neighborhood groups, 
the business sector, developers, elected officials, and agency 
personnel to create more livable communities. Organize and initiate 
both region wide coordination as well as local technical assistance 
efforts. Coordinate the numerous and disparate station area planning 
and development activities throughout the region to reach out to 
local jurisdictions, the development community, and the public to 
increase the level of awareness and understanding of the 
opportunities and challenges of intermodal station planning. Provide 
direct technical assistance and improve community outreach and test 
a variety of different techniques aimed at advancing local 
implementation and expanding local community participation.

West Virginia

01: City of Martinsburg: ``Historic Baltimore & Ohio Roundhouse 
Renovation Project'' $300,000

    Develop plans and specifications to renovate/restore the 
Historic B&O Roundhouse complex. Establish an intermodal operations 
center to coordinate these services in relation to port commerce, 
commuter systems, commercial trade, travel and tourism which ties 
together the highway, rail and air transportation system from within 
the inland intermodal port area to the historic infrastructure links 
in a manner which will enhance commerce, cultural/recreational 
opportunities, and transportation best practices. Develop a Facility 
Use Plan to chart the course for the complex's development. Provide 
direction for local officials and the community as they strive to 
both preserve and effectively transform the existing facility into a 
key element of the entire transportation, retail trade and community 
complex. Purchase a trolley bus which will be used as a key short 
term commuter link with the existing transportation system by 
providing access to the MARC Train and the Pan Tran Public 
Transportation System.


01: Dane County: ``Design Dane Phase II'' $365,000

    Provide Dane County communities with the tools necessary to 
thoroughly evaluate competing land development scenarios. Design a 
technical geographic model, standards, and process to more 
efficiently present to decision makers the true costs and benefits 
of alternative growth patterns. Consider alternatives to simply 
adding more lanes when making improvements to congested roadways. 
Coordinate between land use and transportation decision making in 
communities along roadway corridors. Design and implement transit-
oriented development (TOD) projects that may be used as models for 
future development within our primary transit corridor.

Attachment II: Sample Outline and Format for FY 2000 TCSP Grant 

Cover Sheet With Abstract (1 Page)

I. Project Information

Project Title and Location:--------------------------------------------
Key Contact:-----------------------------------------------------------
Amount Requested: $----------------------------------------------------


    This should be a brief paragraph describing the project and the 
expected results. Describe the scale of activity such as rural, 
urban, statewide, etc. and provide information on the types of 
populations affected by the project (i.e., size of population, 
commuter, disadvantaged, minority, etc.).

II. Project Description

    Narrative: Briefly describe the project, the geographic scale of 
the proposed activity (system, region, corridor, etc.), its expected 
results in the short-and longer-term (20-40 years), and the 
applicant's expectations or vision for the ultimate impact of the 

III. Purpose and Criteria

    Objectives: Further describe the project and its objectives. 
Relate how it furthers and integrates each of the following purposes 
of the TCSP program:
    1. Improve the efficiency of the transportation system;
    2. Reduce the impacts of transportation on the environment;
    3. Reduce the need for costly future investments in public 
    4. Ensure efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of 
trade; and
    5. Examine development patterns and identify strategies to 
encourage private sector development patterns which achieve the 
goals of the TCSP.

IV. Category of Grantee

    Grantees should determine if their agency is: (a) Just beginning 
community preservation practices in their area, or (b) If they have 
already implemented community preservation practices. Grantees in 
this later category should provide brief information on established 
community preservation practices within their community or 

[[Page 25113]]

V. Coordination

    Indicate how the proposal is consistent with State and 
metropolitan planning processes and how the appropriate MPO or State 
Department of Transportation coordination will be demonstrated.

VI. Partners

    List, and briefly describe if necessary, the agencies, 
organizations, and companies participating in the activities or on 
the project team. Describe the role and functions of the non-
traditional partners participating on the project team. Describe 
plans for involvement or education of the private and public sector.

VII. Schedule

    Provide a schedule to complete the major steps or milestones in 
the project. Include dates of major milestones for project 
activities, the evaluation and when written reports of the project 
activities will be submitted.

VIII. Budget and Resources

    This section should include a list of all funding, both Federal 
and non-Federal, and in-kind resources for the project. Priority is 
given to proposals that demonstrate a commitment of non-Federal 
resources. Proposals should clearly describe use of in-kind and 
direct funding contributions and distinguish contributions that are 
made directly for the proposed projects from those made for other 
related activities. The budget should include a list of the major 
costs by category for the project. This could include, for example, 
personnel costs, travel, services, project evaluation including any 
contract services, etc. The budget should also show how the TCSP 
funds and other matching funds are used for these activities. The 
budget may include the costs for travel for one representative of 
the project team to participate and present the status and results 
of the project at two national conferences.

IX. Project Evaluation Plan

    The FHWA has prepared guidance on the preparation of evaluation 
plans for TCSP. This will assist in preparing and summarizing the 
preliminary plans for evaluation of the activity, including means of 
monitoring, indicators and measures of performance, and plans for 
reporting results. Copies of this guidance can be found on the FHWA 
website (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/program.html) or from the FHWA's 
Division office in the applicant's State (see Attachment III):
    Proposal format for submissions: This example format will assist 
applicants in preparing your proposal submission. The FHWA does not 
anticipate that these grant requests will be very lengthy (recommend 
no more than 15 pages). Any attachments that are included should be 
directly related to the proposal. Because the FHWA will make copies 
of the grant proposals for the review process, requests should be in 
a similar format:

General Format

Page Size: 8\1/2\'' x 11'' (including maps and attachments)
12 point font, single sided
Clip the top left corner--no binding or staples
Any colored documents (including maps) should be reproducible in 
black and white
Include on each page of your submission the project title and page 

Format for Additional Electronic Submission (Optional)

    Electronic Format: Include proposal (without attachments) in 
WordPerfect version 6/7/8 or Word version 97 or earlier on 3\1/2\ 
inch floppy disk labeled with your project title and name.
    No watermarks, embedded text, or graphics.
    Project submission: Please submit 4 copies and an electronic 
file of the grant request to the FHWA's Division office in your 
State. The request should be in the Division office by Thursday, 
July 15, 1999.

Attachment III--FHWA Division Offices

            State                       FHWA address, phone no.
Alabama......................  500 Eastern Boulevard, Suite 200,
                                Montgomery, AL 36117-2018, 334-223-7374.
Alaska.......................  P.O. Box 21648, Juneau, AK 99802-1648,
Arizona......................  234 N. Central Avenue, Suite 330,
                                Phoenix, AZ 85004, 602-379-3916.
Arkansas.....................  Federal Office Building, 700 West Capitol
                                Avenue, Room 3130, Little Rock, AR 72201-
                                3298, 501-324-5625.
California...................  980 9th Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA
                                95814-2724, 916-498-5015.
Colorado.....................  555 Zang Street, Room 250, Lakewood, CO
                                80228-1097, 303-969-6730, Ext. 371.
Connecticut..................  628-2 Hebron Avenue, Suite 303,
                                Glastonbury, CT 06033-5007, 860-659-
                                6703, Ext. 3008.
Delaware.....................  300 South New Street, Room 2101, Dover,
                                DE 19904-6726, 302-734-3819.
District of Columbia.........  Union Center Plaza, 820 First Street,
                                N.E., Suite 750, Washington, DC 20002
Florida......................  227 North Bronough Street, Room 2015,
                                Tallahassee, FL 32301, 850-942-9586.
Georgia......................  61 Forsyth St., SW, 17th Floor, Suite
                                17T100, Atlanta, GA 30303-3104, 404-562-
Hawaii.......................  300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Suite 3202, Box
                                50206, Honolulu, HI 96850, 808-541-2531.
Idaho........................  3050 Lakeharbor Lane, Suite 126, Boise
                                83703, 208-334-9180, Ext. 119.
Illinois.....................  3250 Executive Park Drive, Springfield,
                                IL 62703-4514, 217-492-4641.
Indiana......................  Federal Office Building, Room 254, 575
                                North Pennsylvania Street, Indianapolis,
                                IN 46204-1576, 317-226-7475.
Iowa.........................  105 6th Street, P.O. Box 627, Ames, IA
                                50010-6337, 515-233-7302.
Kansas.......................  3300 South Topeka Blvd., Suite 1, Topeka,
                                KS 66611-2237, 785-267-7281.
Kentucky.....................  John C. Watts Federal Building and U.S.
                                Courthouse , 330 West Broadway Street,
                                P.O. Box 536, Frankfort, KY 40602, 502-
Louisiana....................  Federal Building, Room 255, 750 Florida
                                St., Room 255, P.O. Box 3929, Baton
                                Rouge, LA 70801, 225-389-0245.
Maine........................  Edmund S. Muskie Federal Building, 40
                                Western Avenue, Room 614, Augusta, ME
                                04330, 207-622-8487, Ext. 20.
Maryland.....................  The Rotunda, Suite 220, 711 West 40th
                                Street, Baltimore 21211-2187, 410-962-
                                4342, Ext. 124.
Massachusetts................  Transportation Systems Center, 55
                                Broadway, 10th Floor, Cambridge 02142
Michigan.....................  Federal Building, Room 207, 315 West
                                Allegan Street, Lansing, MI 48933, 517-
Minnesota....................  Galtier Plaza, Box 75, 175 East Fifth
                                Street, Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55101-
                                2904, 651-291-6105.
Mississippi..................  666 North Street, Suite 105, Jackson
                                39202-3199, 601-965-4223.
Missouri.....................  209 Adams Street, Jefferson City 65101,
Montana......................  2880 Skyway Drive, Helena, MT 59602, 406-
                                449-5303, Ext. 236.
Nebraska.....................  Federal Building, Room 220, 100
                                Centennial Mall North, Lincoln, NE 69508-
                                3851, 402-437-5521.
Nevada.......................  705 North Plaza Street, Suite 220, Carson
                                City, NV 89701-0602, 775-687-5321.
New Hampshire................  279 Pleasant Street, Room 204, Concord,
                                NH 03301-2509, 603-225-1606.
New Jersey...................  840 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 310, West
                                Trenton, NJ 08628-1019, 609-637-4200.
New Mexico...................  604 W. San Mateo Road, Santa Fe, NM
                                87505, 505-820-2022.

[[Page 25114]]

New York.....................  Leo W. O'Brien Federal Building, Clinton
                                & N. Pearl Ss., 9th Floor, Albany, NY
                                12207, 518-431-4131.
North Carolina...............  310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410, Raleigh,
                                NC 27601, 919-856-4347.
North Dakota.................  1471 Interstate Loop, Bismarck, ND 58501-
                                0567, 701-250-4347.
Ohio.........................  200 North High Street, Room 328,
                                Columbus, OH 43215, 614-280-6896.
Oklahoma.....................  300 N. Meridian, Suite 105 S, Oklahoma
                                City, OK 73107-6560. 405-605-6174.
Oregon.......................  The Equitable Center, Suite 100, 530
                                Center St., N.E., Salem, OR 97301, 503-
Pennsylvania.................  228 Walnut Street, Room 558, Harrisburg
                                17101-1720, 717-221-4585.
Puerto Rico..................  Federico Degetau Federal Building and
                                U.S. Courthouse, Carlos Chardon St., Rm
                                329, San Juan, PR 00918-1755, 787-766-
                                5600, Ext. 230.
Rhode Island.................  380 Westminster Mall, Fifth Floor,
                                Providence, RI 02903, 401-528-4560.
South Carolina...............  Strom Thurmond Federal Building, 1835
                                Assembly Street, Suite 758, Columbia, SC
                                29201, 803-765-5282.
South Dakota.................  The Sibley Building, 116 East Dakota
                                Avenue, Pierre, SD 57501-3110, 605-224-
                                7326, Ext. 3043.
Tennessee....................  249 Cumberland Bend Drive, Nashville, TN
                                37228, 615-736-5394.
Texas........................  Federal Office Building, Room 826, 300
                                East Eighth Street, Austin , TX 78701,
Utah.........................  2520 W. 4700 South, Suite 9A, Salt Lake
                                City, UT 84118, 801-963-0182.
Vermont......................  Federal Building, 87 State St., P.O. Box
                                568, Montpelier 05601, 802-828-4433.
Virginia.....................  The Dale Building, Suite 205, 1504 Santa
                                Rosa Road, Richmond 23229, 804-281-5103.
Washington...................  Suite 501, Evergreen Plaza, 711 South
                                Capitol Way, Olympia, WA 98501, 360-753-
West Virginia................  Geary Plaza, Suite 200, 700 Washington
                                Street. E, Charleston, WV 25301-1604,
Wisconsin....................  Highpoint Office Park, 567 D'Onofrio
                                Drive, Madison, WI 53719-2814, 608-829-
Wyoming......................  1916 Evans Avenue, Cheyenne, WY 82001-
                                3764, 307-772-2004, Ext. 41.
                      FHWA/FTA Metropolitan Offices
New York.....................  6 World Trade Center, Room 320, New York,
                                NY 10048, FAX: 212-466-1939, 212-668-
                               26 Federal Plaza, Suite 2940, New York,
                                NY 10278-0194, FAX 212-264-8973, 212-668-
Philadelphia.................  1760 Market St., Suite 510, Philadelphia,
                                Pa 19103, 215-656-7070, FAX: 215-656-
                                7260, 215-656-7111.
Chicago......................  200 West Adams, Room 2410, Chicago, IL
                                60606, 312-886-1616, FAX: 312-886-0351
Los Angeles..................  201 N. Figueroa Street, Suite 1460, Los
                                Angeles, CA 90012; 213-202-3950; FAX:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; sec. 1221, Pub.L. 105-178, 112 Stat. 
107, 221 (1998); 49 CFR 1.48.

    Issued on: May 3, 1999.
Gloria J. Jeff,
Federal Highway Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-11586 Filed 05-07-99; 8:45 am]