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

Document Type: 
Collection: 
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
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
January 8, 1981
Content Type: 
REGULATION
File: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon CIA-RDP85-00988R000100110062-2.pdf525.09 KB
Body: 
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