Skip to content

Survey of Committee on Environment and Sustainability Members for Input to AASHTO Reauthorization Effort

Survey Response Due Date: Friday, July 6, 2018

Background

In preparation for the next transportation reauthorization, AASHTO has begun its process to develop reauthorization policy recommendations.

As part of this effort, we are asking committee members for input about what you would like to be changed, improved, or streamlined to help you do your job more effectively.  If you happen to know the specific federal law, regulation or policy that is causing your concern, please let us know.  

In addition, we will seek your input on the proposals in the AASHTO Inventory of Potential Administrative and Legislative Improvements: https://tpf.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/35/2017/06/2017-07-11-AASHTO-Comment-on-USDOT-Policy-Guidance-Regulation-FINAL.pdf

The information we receive from you will be used to develop a white paper on environmental/project delivery reauthorization issues/topics for consideration by the new AASHTO Transportation Policy Forum this fall. 

 

Thank you for your input!
1.Member Name(Required.)
2.Member State(Required.)
3.Member Email Address(Required.)
4.AASHTO Committee Affiliation
5.What issues are unnecessarily slowing down the delivery of projects in your state?  Potential examples: right-of-way acquisition processes, utility relocation issues, environmental permitting delays
6.Do you have additional recommendations regarding expediting project delivery?
7.What issues are unnecessarily increasing the cost of projects?  Potential examples: Buy America issues, lengthy federal processes
8.What tasks, currently overseen by US DOT, do you think your State DOT should have the option to take on (through assignment or an enhanced stewardship agreement) that would make your projects faster, cheaper, and/or less burdensome?  Potential examples: right-of-way acquisition, obligation of Federal funds for a project, interstate access point approval, etc.
9.What flexibilities (or eligibilities) would you like to see added (or removed) from the various federal funding and/or project delivery programs? Potential examples: fiscal constraint, flexibility to transfer funding between programs, use of proprietary products.
10.What rules or programs at the Federal level do you strongly support and would like to see maintained?
11.What tweaks would you recommend to make a given federal rule or program better?  Potential examples:  federal research and SPR program, linking planning and NEPA.
12.What rules or programs would you like to see discontinued?  Potential examples: competitive grant programs like TIGER/BUILD, 10-year rule on preliminary engineering cost repayment.
13.What other issues would you like AASHTO to consider as part of its reauthorization requests to Congress?
14.Does your state support programmatic approaches to conformity determinations, such as programmatic determinations for updates or amendments to transportation plans and programs that do not exceed "di minimus" criteria for expected effect on emissions?
15.Does your state support programmatic approaches to conformity determinations, such as programmatic determinations for newly designated marginal non-attainment areas?
16.Does your states support programmatic approaches to conformity determinations, such as programmatic determinations for maintenance areas?
17.Does your state support requiring that initial transportation conformity does not apply until six months after EPA approves the SIP motor vehicle emissions budget?
18.Does your state support amending regulation to no longer perform air quality modeling when the build alternative improved the Level-of Service or reduces the amount of delay time compared to the no build alternative? 
19.Does your state support allowing NEPA to conclude prior to project level air quality conformity being conducted and projects being included in the fiscally constrained planning documents? Please note that for projects to progress beyond NEPA to project implementation, they would first have to complete project level air quality conformity and be included in the fiscally constrained planning documents.
20.Does your state support more a flexible process associated with Endangered Species Act section 4(d) for all endangered species, not just threatened species?
21.Does your state support being able to make a decision for de minimis exemption for certain Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 6(f) actions?
22.Does your states support additional clarification from USFWS on if the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) applies to any project involving an incidental take?
23.Does your state support allowing utility relocation to take place after a preferred alternative is identified but prior to NEPA completion with appropriate limitations to ensure the integrity of the NEPA process, and allow federal funds to be used for the relocation?