Federal Funding of Transportation Improvements in BRAC Cases Special Report 302 (2011) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
4 Funding Options
4 Funding Options
Pages 55-80
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 55... ...
The first section of this chapter reviews existing DoD programs for assisting communities whose transportation facilities are affected by military base growth. The second section reviews traditional non-DoD government programs to fund surface transportation infrastructure.
|
From page 56... ...
Under DAR, DoD can use funds provided in military construction (MILCON) appropriations to pay for all or part of the cost of constructing and maintaining roads designated as "defense access roads." 56
|
From page 57... ...
210a The Secretary [of Transportation] is authorized, out of funds appropriated for defense access roads, to provide for the construction and maintenance of defense access roads (includ ing bridges, tubes, and tunnels thereon)
|
From page 58... ...
Criterion 2 is of most concern in metropolitan areas. Unlike the rural and less developed areas for which the DAR program was designed, bases in metropolitan areas already have access roads, so Criterion 1 is not likely to come into play; nor is Criterion 3, because an expanded access road for a temporary surge would be impractical to try to implement in a metropolitan area given the difficulty of adding capacity on short notice.
|
From page 59... ...
Thus, it appears that the doubling criterion is not appropriate for determining DAR eligibility for funding transportation improvements in congested metropolitan areas. When considering travel demand management programs to relieve congestion, the nonlinearity of a few vehicles having a disproportionate effect can work in reverse.
|
From page 60... ...
(Gannett Fleming 2010) The recommended approach in the Gannett Fleming report for DoD would consider the following factors to determine eligibility of projects in highly urbanized areas where military growth causes sudden or unusual traffic impacts: • Military installation is within an urbanized area with population greater than 200,000.
|
From page 61... ...
DAR Eligibility for Nonhighway Transportation Improvements Most BRAC bases that were studied have adopted a multimodal approach in the development of their traffic management plans. They recognize the need to limit single-occupancy vehicle traffic onto bases and provide travel alternatives for base personnel.
|
From page 62... ...
is DoD's primary source for assisting communities that are adversely affected by DoD program changes, including base closures and realignments, base expansions, and contract and program cancelations. OEA offers technical and financial assistance to adversely affected communities and coordinates the involvement of other federal agencies through the Defense Economic Adjustment Program and the President's Economic Adjustment Committee.
|
From page 63... ...
With Harford County as the lead agency, the Chesapeake Science and Security Corridor Regional BRAC Office administers grants and coordinates regional BRAC responses. OEA's efforts occur after DoD has decided to make changes to military bases.
|
From page 64... ...
The process supplements underfunded and unfunded capital improvements and operations and maintenance expenses. By statute, the lease must promote the national defense or be in the public interest.
|
From page 65... ...
Because of base commanders' many competing demands, however, these funds would need to be dedicated to transportation uses if revenues from EULs were to relieve the traffic impacts of bases. BAse oPeRAting AnD mAintenAnce Accounts Military construction funding is only one source to address traffic congestion caused by base activities.
|
From page 66... ...
For example, demonstrable fuel savings, reduced overtime or absentee costs, and reduced military operation costs, such as more efficient logistics programs, could be retained by base commanders for other on-base priorities rather than resulting in reduced total budget authority. Other indirect savings, such as improved employee retention, reduced employee replacement and training expenses, and lower rates of sick leave, may be more difficult to link to reduced traffic congestion but may nonetheless be real and could further result in monetary incentives for base commanders if identified, quantified, validated, and retained or could be factors in their overall performance evaluations.
|
From page 67... ...
The purchasing power of the federal gasoline tax revenue has declined 33% since the last fuel tax increase because of inflation (National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Finance Commission 2009, Exhibit 4-2)
|
From page 68... ...
Surface transportation legislative provisions allow states to transfer funds between core programs and also to eligible transit projects. Federal capital transit programs include formula grants to transit agencies and states.
|
From page 69... ...
of 1969 and be consistent with the Clean Air Act amendments in addition to other federal requirements. Federal transportation funds are limited and projects to improve access to military installations must compete for funds with all other projects in a region to improve transportation service.
|
From page 70... ...
These project proposals will undergo an evaluation of expected project costs and benefits: USDOT believes that benefit–cost analysis is an important discipline for surface transportation investment, and applicants are generally required to identify, quantify, and compare the project's expected benefits and costs. In the selection of projects in the first and second TIGER rounds, no base access projects for BRAC bases were selected for funding.
|
From page 71... ...
Federal aid through USDOT programs discussed above almost exclusively fund capital improvements. Most states have a highway trust fund that is funded through motor fuels and other user fees, while local governments rely on a wide variety of taxes to support their transportation assets, particularly property and sales taxes.
|
From page 72... ...
Most of the facilities adversely affected by base expansion are state highways, and local property or business taxes would not apply. The state could dedicate a share of future highway user taxes to repay the loan, but, as indicated above, most state transportation trust funds are inadequate to meet current needs.
|
From page 73... ...
• Account for and spend collected fees only for the purposes intended, with a provision for returning unexpended funds. Impact fees on new development have been imposed to make improvements to transportation 4 facilities and corridors, examples of which would be informative in developing an approach that would work for base expansions (Cooper 2000; Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates 2004; Newport Partners and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 2008)
|
From page 74... ...
Following the impact fee model, the first step in the application is to assess the deficiencies in the existing transportation system before the personnel increases in the military bases occurred. The cost to alleviate these deficiencies needs to be estimated.
|
From page 75... ...
If a region welcomes private development without charging fees or receiving exactions, then DoD should not be expected to provide support for transportation improvements for base expansion. • The military responsibility should extend only to restoring the level of service to what it was before the new traffic was added.
|
From page 76... ...
COnClusiOns DoD PRogRAms The official DoD policy is that, aside from the DAR program, when bases impose new transportation demand on surrounding communities, state and local governments should look to their own and traditional federal-aid transportation programs for capital and operating funds. The DAR program is the only capital program for meeting road access needs outside the base; however, it is too limited to meet the needs of metropolitan areas experiencing rapid base expansion.
|
From page 77... ...
long lead times are necessary to coordinate related and required regulatory and planning approvals and stability of funding is a necessary prerequisite for such approvals. Options to improve fencing of military funding could include specific authorization or appropriations language included in the relevant statutes or accompanying congressional reports, DoD policy statements creating priority for such funding or increasing flexibility for use by base commanders, and transfers of DoD funding to other federal entities such as USDOT, which may have longer time frames for use or obligation of such funding.
|
From page 78... ...
Consequently, states, MPOs, and local governments have had to prioritize their transportation projects and fund only those with the highest priority and those for which they can find funding. Whereas states and regions that benefit economically from the presence of military bases should contribute to the cost of improving facilities that the military requires, and may need to reconsider their priorities in order to do so, the demands of BRAC 2005 could hardly have come at a more difficult time.
|
From page 79... ...
NCSL, Washington, D.C. National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Finance Commission.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.