FEDERAL REGISTER PART V DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDRAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION CARPOOL AND VANPOOL PROJECTS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP85-00988R000100110062-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 23, 2005
• Sequence Number: 62
• Publication Date: January 8, 1981
• Content Type: REGULATION

Approved For Base 2005/07/12: CIA-RDP85-00988100110062-2
Thursday
January 8, 1981
Part V
apartment of
Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Carpool and Vanpool Projects
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP85-00988R000100110062-2
 2298
Federal Regi tdrPTToVfe fWf 1%&9RWTIA?t-TFI`]WPP4m,9 *QQikst0062-2
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION policies regarding the Federal-aid role in
ridesharing transportation.
Federal Highway Administration The FHWA recognizes that all
Al f the
s o
ridesharing efforts, regar es
purpose of the trips involved, help to
conserve energy, reduce pollution, and
Carpool and Vanpool Projects reduce traffic congestion. However, the
AGENCY: Federal I Iighway work or commute trip is the most
adaptable trip purpose for ridesharing
Administration rule. DOT. arrangements, accounting as it does for
ACTION: Final rule. some 40 percent of all home-based trips
SUMMARY` The FI-IWA is revising taken by automobile. The commute trip
existing carpool and vanpool procedures is specifically addressed in the national
to reflect changes required by the policy statement in the STAR. The
Surface Transportation Assistance Act FHWA continues this emphasis for
of 1978. The revised rule contains the . ridesharing projects as such projects
basic criteria for determining whether contribute to better transportation
carpool and vanpool (ridesharing) system management, especially during
projects are eligible for Federal-aid peak travel periods where street and
funding under 23 U.S.C. 140. highway physical capacity is often
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 30, 1981. constrained. This policy emphasis is not
meant to inhibit State and local officials
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: from implementing Federal-aid
Barbara Reichert, Office of highway ridesharing projects that address other
Planning, 202-.426-0210, or I-Iugh T. trip purposes where such projects are
O'Reilly, Office of the Chief Counsel, consistent with local needs and the
20?.-420 078'I, Federal Ilighway policy objectives stated in ? 650.3 of this
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., rule.
Washington, D.C. 20590. Office hours Several comments were received
are from 7:45 a.nl. to 4:15 p.m. ET, regarding the size of vans which can be
Monday through Friday. purchased with Federal-aid funds. The
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule allowable passenger capacity In
amends the FIUWA's existing carpool ? 656.5(c)(3)(i) has been changed from 8
and vanpool regulation (23 CFR 056) as to 15 passengers to 7 to 15 passengers to
required by Section 126 of the Surface accommodate smaller sized vans
't'ransportation Assistance Act of 1978 . available in the marketplace and to be
(STAR) (Pub. L. 95-599, 92 Stat. 2689). consistent with certain State motor
The STAA changes the Federal share for vehicle code definitions that use the 7
carpool and vanpool projects from 90 passenger number criterion. Section
percent to 75 percent; permits the use of 656.5(c)(3)(ii) requires that provision be
Federal-aid secondary system funds for made for repayment of the acquisition
such projects; changes theme projects cost of the van, but also specifies two
from demonstration projects to regular situations In which repayment may not
Federal-aid highway projects; and be required where the van Is used as a
declares that special efforts should be marketing device.
made to promote commuter modes of Many commenters objected to the
transportation that conserve energy, lowering of the Federal matching ratio
reduce pollution and reduce traffic
congestion. This rule does not concern
grants and loans made pursuant to
subsections (e) and (f) of Section 120 of
the STAA.
A notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) was published in the Federal
Register (44 FR 70753) on December 10,
1979, requesting comments on proposed
revisions to the carpool and vanpool
regulation. Thirty-three letters were
submitted to the public docket (No. 79-
28) in response to the NPRM,
CCUCI[u-u,ta
change was legislative y mandated by Regarding FAI. funds, FHWA has
Congress in Section 126(b) of the STAR. authority to use these funds to construct
The STAA repealed the Emergency exclusive carpool and vanpool fringe
Ilighway Energy Conservation Act of parking facilities within existing FAI
1974 under which ridesharing projects right-of-way. Outside existing right-of-
were funded on a demonstration basis way, FAI funds may be used for carpool
with a 90 percent Federal share. The and vanpool fringe parking facilities
STAA removed the demonstration only when such facilities serve existing
status and incorporated ridesharing or planned public mass transportation
projects into the regular Federal-aid service.
highway program, which limits the It should be emphasized that other
roject cost to 75 regular construction projects such as
f t
h
l
arp o
s
Federa
he p
I3iscussion of Comments percent (except as provided under constructing high occupancy vehicle
The FHWA. carefully reviewed all Section 120 of Title 23 U.S.C., for certain (HOV) lanes and facilities and
comments received. As many comments' public land States). multimodal fringe parking facilities can
as possible have been incorporated into The FHWA has determined that a be funded with all categories of Federal-
this final rule, The purpose of this wide variety of in-kind services and aid funds including FAI funds.
preamble is to explain our actions - activities can be accepted as the local The second aspect of FAI funding
regarding the most significant comments share or "match" of the project cost. In- involved numerous suggestions that
as well as to present our approach and kind contributions permitted as local these funds be eligible to participate in
match include properly valued public
service announcements (PSA), computer
services, and project-related stuff time
for administration by employees of
public and private organizations. Private
employers are particularly encouraged
to commit their resources as described
above in order to contribute to areawide
ridesharing efforts. In general, a project-
related cost that is eligible for Federal-
aid funding is, when properly valued
and accounted, acceptable as a local in-
kind match. The FHWA believes that
this flexibility should reduce the burden
some States or local areas may face in
providing the required local match.
Section 656.5(c)(5) indicates that
Federal-aid funds will participate in the
initial or renewal costs of leasing
parking spaces or the acquisition of
easements or restrictions to provide
preferential parking for carpools. Where
a reduction. in the overall number of
vehicles using the designated portion of
a commercial parking facility can be
demonstrated, that reduction may be
used in computing the lease oC
acquisition cost for the project.
However, the regulation does not permit
the cost to be computed on the basis of
a reduction of the per-vehicle user
charge for parking in the designated
area.
Another issue raised involved the use
of Federal-aid Interstate (FAI) funds for
ridesharing projects. This issue had two
general aspects. The first was the
comment offered by many that FI tWA
should allow FAI funds to participate in
the costs to construct exclusive (not
served by existing or planned transit)
carpool and vanpool fringe parking
facilities not located within the existing
FAl right-of-way. At the present time,
FHWA has authority under 23 U.S.C.
146(a) to use Federal-aid urban (FAUS),
primary_(FAP) and secondary (FAS)
Approved For Release 2005/07/12 : CIA-RDP85-00988R000100110062-2
 FederaA&9W j /FbfieeyaaN* _T0d5 &N1QityCl1Au R4DP85-O f
the administrative costs of ridesharing
programs. Currently, 23 U.S.C. 146(a)
specifically authorizes the use of FAUS,
FAP, and FAS funds for such purposes.
The FIIWA believes that these three
classes of funds have considerable
untapped potential to support
t'idesharing projects and strongly
encourages State and local officials to
r;i% a priority to ridesharing projects in
d)e annual programs of projects
;;rupared by the States.
Another concern raised by
E:ommanters is the language in ? 656.5(a)
!~;iat ridesharing projects "must serve a
cOderal-aid system" and be financed
with the appropriate class of eligible
."Ids, "depending on the system