Integrating Aviation and Passenger Rail Planning (2015)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

127 Introduction and Structure Before a facility can be constructed it has to proceed through the project development process, which includes both preliminary engineering and design engineering. Before those phases of project development, the project has to evolve through a process of planning and environmental docu­ mentation, and (usually) be selected for funding through a regional or state planning process. This Chapter explores the kinds of funding mechanisms which exist to pay for those planning efforts. In many cases, the nature of the planning process has been determined by federal law, where the state and local entities usually must participate through the pro­ vision of local share (while federal programs have existed with 100% share, these are the exceptions to the rule). Often the rules of funding mechanism are established under fed­ eral law, such as the FAA’s Passenger Facilities Charge (PFC), or the FHWA’s Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loans, and then carried out as if the money were local in nature. Such situations represent a merging of federal and non­federal roles, where the funding is neither purely “federal” nor purely “local” as the money is collected in, and remains in, the local jurisdiction following federal guidelines. This Chapter reviews the kinds of resources that are potentially available to support planning and is presented with the caveat that each project reviewed in this report has been developed in a unique (and possibly non­transferrable) manner. Thus, Chapter 9 presents a discussion of funding programs for planning that might be relevant to the air/rail concept being explored, without any implication that such funding would be available for a specific situation. Structure Chapter 9 will first present a summary of most relevant federal programs that might be applied to fund planning and early project development efforts for intermodal projects and programs which involve the integration of air and intercity rail planning. The review of many possible federal programs was conducted by the Policy Research Center of the Coali­ tion of Northeastern Governors, an organization which has had decades of experience in encouraging intermodal solu­ tions at the federal level, and a member of the ACRP Research Team. Second, the Chapter will note the nature of the state and local role in funding planning efforts, concluding that each individual project seems to have different kinds of non­ federal contexts and characteristics. That section includes a recap of 24 separate projects and programs which have had a transportation planning component to them. The evident existence of a major state or local role for each is flagged in the review. Finally, the Chapter concludes with two case studies: (1) the Miami Intermodal Center (MIC) is reviewed in terms of the budget allocated for planning, and how that planning was ultimately funded; (2) the Interlink Project at T. F. Green Airport (Providence) is reviewed in terms of the funding mechanisms that were ultimately applied to bring the project to fruition. Both case studies suggest that plan­ ning activities undertaken for early project development may or may not accurately predict the funding needs and mechanisms that will ultimately be applied in the project; the need to reflect that uncertainty is noted. Background: The Challenge of Intermodal Planning Planning for transportation strategies and solutions which involve several modes and/or several institutions has been a challenge for major governmental institutions, many of which tend to be structured around the needs and responsibilities of managing a single mode. Thus, the question of where to find funding for planning for multimodal and multijurisdictional efforts is not an easy one, and not one that will be resolved within this Chapter. And yet, projects and (to a lesser extent), programs have been built, and somewhere, somehow, funding C H A P T E R 9 Federal and State Funding for Air/Rail Planning

128 has been found to get them into the implementation phase. This ACRP report has reviewed over 20 American projects or planning processes in which the activities of rail operators impact upon the activities of airport operators, or vice versa. The exact sources of funding for the planning activities can­ not be summarized in any precise way, as literally each of the 24 programs discussed in this report has a unique history of its development and possible implementation. In many cases, a conceptual idea is born within the day­to­day process of planning and management, whether as part of the regional planning process, or within an air­oriented or a rail­oriented operating agency. Then, external funding is often sought as the preliminary planning must be supplemented by prelimi­ nary engineering and other more costly project development activities. And, even at that point, it may not be known or understood exactly what combination of funding mecha­ nisms will be used to repay early loans or bonding efforts supporting preliminary design and development. The Federal Role in Supporting Planning of Intermodal Facilities Transportation officials throughout the United States are increasingly determined to harness the latent potential of intermodal projects in their efforts to integrate and revitalize the country’s sprawling transportation networks. Yet as with all transportation activities, rigorous planning represents an essential foundation to the development of any intermodal project. Moreover, intermodal planning will inevitably con­ front the same harsh budgetary realities that afflict all trans­ portation efforts at the state and municipal levels. As a result, federal support for state and local intermodal planning is essential to the success of such projects. The federal govern­ ment, however, has failed to adapt its transportation funding mechanisms to the realities of intermodal transportation. Most federal transportation programs remain narrowly tar­ geted to individual modes, often with limited or no flexibility to expand their scope. At present, no ongoing federal pro­ gram exists for the specific purpose of supporting intermodal planning per se. This is a significant challenge for supporters of intermodal planning at the state and local levels, yet it need not be a fatal one. A range of federal programs exists that have the potential to support intermodal planning, if advocates can creatively apply their statutes and make the necessary arguments. Some are more likely to succeed than others. But given the importance of acquiring federal support for inter­ modal planning, all deserve a sustained analysis. Chapter 9 now provides a summary of the major federal programs which could be applied in the planning of inter­ modal programs. This quick review includes a summary of major federal funding in operation in late 2012, including the programs of “MAP­21,” the latest legislation for trans­ portation. While the focus of Chapter 9 is on the mechanisms to fund the planning of projects involving both airports and longer distance rail, reference will necessarily be made to the funding mechanisms for the development and construction of the projects themselves. Chapter 9 does not address the ques­ tion of capital funding for the 24 projects noted in the text. In terms of the funding of intermodal projects themselves, a good example of the research in this field can be found in “Collaborative Funding to Facilitate Airport Ground Access (Report 11­27),” Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) at San José State University (Gosling et al., 2012). Air/rail intermodal development represents one of the most significant potential paths for the evolution of inter modal transportation in the United States. Unfortunately, air/rail intermodal planning is subject to the same fiscal constraints and difficulties that impede intermodal planning at the state and local levels. Nevertheless, many federal programs hold the potential to support the efforts of state and municipal trans­ portation officials in overseeing air/rail intermodal planning activities. These programs fall within three broad categories: comprehensive transportation planning programs; transpor­ tation project programs, in which planning is an eligible activ­ ity for funding; and transportation pilot programs. None of these categories was designed to specifically support air/rail intermodal planning, but all of them hold the potential to do so in the right circumstances. Given the lack of direct federal action in the field of intermodal planning, such creative think­ ing will probably remain the best option for state and municipal officials to acquire funding for the foreseeable future. Federal Programs, Part One: Comprehensive Transportation Planning Overview Several federal programs provide funding in support of comprehensive transportation planning documents at the state and local levels. These programs—such as the Statewide Trans­ portation Planning Program (23 USC 135), the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Program (23 USC 134), and the State Rail Plans Program (49 USC 227)—are intended to assist the efforts of state and municipal agencies to create integrated transportation plans that encompass the entire transporta­ tion system. Their purpose is to broaden the vision of trans­ portation planning and ensure that states and municipalities approach their future transportation issues in an organized and systematic fashion. Intermodal planning, including air/ rail planning, is well within the scope of these programs, offering an opportunity for state and local transportation agencies to incorporate air/rail planning within their broader federally assisted efforts. However, the design of the programs will inevitably create a competition between air/rail planning

129 Statewide Transportation Planning (23 USC 135, 49 USC 5304), FHWA and FTA Potential Air/Rail Collaborative Planning Federal government mandates state transportation agencies to conduct statewide transportation planning. States are obli­ gated to draft and submit Long­Range Statewide Transportation Plans and Statewide Transportation Improvement Programs, with both documents adopting a comprehensive approach to transportation systems and charged with “enhancing the inte­ gration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes . . .” Intermodal planning is thus central to the process, and all modes—including air/rail—are subject to analysis. The funding mechanism is formula set aside. Available Funding, Cost Sharing and Continuing Financial Obligations Pursuant to Title 23, statewide transportation planning is eligible for a portion of the 1.25% of highway and surface transportation funds that is set aside specifically for that pur­ pose under 23 USC 104. Also pursuant to Title 49, statewide transportation planning is eligible for 17.28% of the fund­ ing available for statewide and metropolitan planning under 49 USC 5338. Funds are apportioned to particular states based upon a formula that takes into account a number of factors, including urban population. Application Complexity and Rigor In addition to the required two planning documents, states may also prepare a financial plan that details the resources necessary to implement the planning documents, as well as possible funding mechanisms. Public/Private Eligibility Funding is exclusively dedicated to state transportation agencies. Metropolitan Transportation Planning (23 USC 134, 49 USC 5303) Potential Air/Rail Collaborative Planning Similarly to the statewide transportation planning program, this program mandates metropolitan planning organizations to draft a 4­year transportation plan and a Transportation Improvement Program for the purpose of enhancing com­ prehensive transportation planning. Once again, intermodal planning is unambiguously included in the eligible criteria, including air/rail intermodal planning. The funding mecha­ nism is formula set aside. and the other elements of the transportation plans for atten­ tion and resources. While air/rail planning will be eligible for portions of the available funding, the wide net cast by these programs—and the considerable number of requirements mandated by the programs in order for transportation plans to gain approval under federal standards—will necessar­ ily limit the financial support available to air/rail planning. Comprehensive transportation planning programs hold the promise of hundreds of millions of dollars in overall fund­ ing, but it will largely depend upon the applicants themselves to emphasize the importance of air/rail intermodal planning and secure the necessary funding allotments in support of those requirements. State Planning and Research (23 USC 505), FHWA Potential Air/Rail Collaborative Planning The program funds wide­ranging transportation planning and research on a broad spectrum of issues, including “inter­ modal transportation systems.” Air/rail planning is undoubt­ edly eligible under this program, although a connection to either the interstate highway system or public transportation may be necessary. Available Funding, Cost Sharing and Continuing Financial Obligations Two percent of the annual funding available to states under the federal transportation formula is eligible for distribution under this program. The federal transportation formula is funded out of the Highway Trust Fund (23 USC 104). The federal share of any given grant is a minimum of 80%, with DOT discretion to assume a greater proportion of the cost (up to 100%) if deemed in the best interests of the federal­aid highway system. Application Complexity and Rigor The program is deliberately broad, and flexibility is reflected in the expansive set of “purposes” that govern project eligibility. However, at least 25% of the funds apportioned to a state in a given year must be allocated towards research, development and technology, unless the state can demonstrate that its state­ wide and metropolitan planning processes (23 USC 134 and 135) have already accounted for more than 75% of the state’s annual formula grant. Public/Private Eligibility Funding is exclusively directed to state transportation agencies for planning and research purposes.

130 funding for air/rail planning, as many of these programs are well funded on an annual basis. Yet they also threaten to constrain air/rail planning activities within narrow corridors and oblige state and municipal planners to structure their activities in less than optimal ways in order to gain funding eligibility. While individual projects can benefit substantially from the use of these programs, it may be difficult to forge a comprehensive approach to air/rail intermodal planning within the framework of transportation project programs. Passenger Facility Charge Program (49 USC 40117), FAA Potential Air/Rail Collaborative Planning This program funds airport improvement projects and is governed by similar rules as the AIP, although it is a distinct program. It operates through competitive grants. Planning is an eligible activity, and air/rail intermodal projects are deemed to be suitable destinations for PFC funding, albeit operating under similar constraints as AIP air/rail projects. Examples include the AirTrain automated mover at JFK and Newark International Airports and the light rail extension and new station at Portland International Airport. Available Funding, Cost Sharing and Continuing Financial Obligations PFC funds are derived from airport­imposed fees upon enplaning passengers of up to $4.50 per passenger. Cost shar­ ing proportions are similar to the AIP program, although for certain projects, PFC funds can be used towards the non­federal share of project costs under an AIP grant. Application Complexity and Rigor The constraints upon air/rail projects (including planning) are nearly identical to those established by the AIP program. Public/Private Eligibility Funding is exclusively directed towards “public agencies that control a commercial service airport,” although coor­ dination with local and regional transportation boards and other important actors is encouraged. Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) (23 USC 601) FHWA Potential Air/Rail Collaborative Planning The program provides credit assistance for large­scale sur­ face transportation projects, including intercity passenger Available Funding, Cost Sharing and Continuing Financial Obligations The funding sources for the Metropolitan Transportation Planning program are the same as the aforementioned sources for the Statewide Transportation Planning program. However, the funding proportions are different. Metropolitan planning is awarded a higher priority than statewide planning in receiv­ ing its portion of the 1.25% of highway and surface transpor­ tation funds that are made available under 23 USC 104. And 82.72% of the funding available through 49 USC 5338 is also designated for metropolitan planning. A formula also accounts for funding in regards to particular metropolitan areas. Application Complexity and Rigor Similarly to the statewide planning program, metropoli­ tan areas may prepare a financial plan to consider resource requirements and potential remedies. Public/Private Eligibility Funding is exclusively dedicated to metropolitan planning organizations. Federal Programs, Part Two: Transportation Projects A number of federal programs provide funding in sup­ port of specific transportation projects at the state and local levels, with well­defined criteria for eligible activities, cost sharing, and time horizons. Some of these programs—such as the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) (49 USC 471), the Surface Transportation Program (23 USC 133), and the Intercity Passenger Rail Service Capital Assistance Program (49 USC 244)—designate both intermodal activities (includ­ ing air/rail) and planning activities as eligible for financial support. As a result, the planning phase of air/rail intermodal projects can gain eligibility for funding from these programs in the right circumstances. However, there are significant obstacles that complicate any funding request from these pro­ grams. Transportation project programs are often targeted at precise types of projects, with strict guidelines to regulate the scope of the program. As a result, the funding eligibility of air/rail intermodal planning may depend upon finding the right project vehicle with which to carry it; the ability of air/ rail planning to obtain funding may rely upon the general conditions and needs of the overall transportation system, rather than its own merits. This situation is far from ideal, and it has the potential to limit air/rail planning in states and municipalities that do not possess the right conditions for application to a given federal program. Transportation proj­ ect programs hold open the prospect of significant federal

131 tion projects in an effort to enhance job creation. Project eli­ gibility under TIGER/TIGER II is generally defined through existing statutes governing federal transportation grants, namely Title 23 and Chapter 53 of Title 49. As such, all plan­ ning activities eligible under those statutes are eligible for funding through the TIGER/TIGER II programs. Further­ more, all intermodal projects–including air/rail planning– with similar status are eligible as well. The program operates as competitive grants. Available Funding, Cost Sharing and Continuing Financial Obligations TIGER federal share may cover up to 100% of the project cost, although DOT guidelines state that priority will be given to projects that require federal funding for the rapid completion of a project that already possesses non­federal sources of funding. TIGER II federal share may cover up to 80% of the project cost, with a potential waiver for rural projects elevating the federal share to 100%. The TIGER II program also reserves $35 million specifi­ cally for planning grants, governed by the same eligibility as projects in general under the program. Funding for these programs has been allocated. TIGER FY 2014 is authorized to award up to $35 million (of the pro­ gram’s $600 million total) for planning grants. Application Complexity and Rigor Both programs establish a set of broad selection criteria, such as “livability” and “sustainability.” The context of both programs—the desire for accelerated federal transportation funding in an effort to promote job creation—produced a flex­ ible application process that would allow for expedited appli­ cations. As such, an unduly burdensome requirement process does not constrain the application process. Public/Private Eligibility Funding is primarily intended for public agencies, includ­ ing state and local transportation agencies and metropolitan planning organizations. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (23 USC 149) Potential Air/Rail Collaborative Planning The program funds transportation projects that reduce transportation­related emissions. The statute is defined broadly, leaving significant flexibility in defining projects that improve environmental quality. Funding mechanism is formula set aside. Project eligibility is not discussed at length beyond the rail, public freight rail and intermodal freight rail facilities, as well as corresponding projects to provide access to those facilities. Planning activities are considered eligible costs for TIFIA funding. Air/rail intermodal planning is seemingly eli­ gible under these criteria, so long as the air facility compo­ nent is integral to the value of the rail component. The use of a TIFIA loan for an intermodal air/rail project is explored in this Chapter with a case study of its use at the Miami Inter­ modal Center. Funding mechanisms include Secured Direct Loan; Loan Guarantee; and Standby Line of Credit. Available Funding, Cost Sharing and Continuing Financial Obligations TIFIA funds are derived from a capital reserve created by DOT under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA). The federal share of eligible project costs is a maximum of 33%. Interest rates are fixed and equivalent to Treasury rates. Maximum maturity of all credit instruments is 35 years after project completion, with the possibility of a 5­year defer­ ral period after the end of construction at the discretion of FHWA. Repayment conditions vary based upon the specific credit instrument deployed for the project and are negotiated on a case­by­case basis. Application Complexity and Rigor Projects must satisfy five threshold requirements to gain eligibility for TIFIA funds: eligible costs must be “reason­ ably anticipated” to exceed $50 million; demonstrated abil­ ity to meet the statutory criteria for application submission; inclusion of the proposed project in both long­range state transportation plan and approved State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) (23 USC 135); existence of dedicated revenue sources for purposes of repayment; and public approval of a privately sponsored project, if applicable. Public/Private Eligibility Funding is available to both public agencies and private entities, although private entities must gain state approval for any project as a prerequisite to applying for TIFIA funding. Public/private cooperation is encouraged. TIGER/TIGER II, National Infrastructure Programs, All DOT Agencies Potential Air/Rail Collaborative Planning Initially created in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, these programs provided flexible funding to DOT for the purpose of rapid distribution to state and local transporta­

132 sources. Federal share of eligible costs involving large and medium primary hub airports is 75% but 95% for small primary and general aviation airports. Application Complexity and Rigor Air/rail projects (including planning) are only eligible if transit rail connections are located on airport property or on property owned by “sponsor” (i.e., publicly owned). Projects are ineligible where they would not be located on airport or publicly owned property. Projects are also ineligible where they would possess “general use” functions that could serve non­airport pas­ sengers, regardless of the concurrent benefits to the airport. Only airports selected as members of the National Plan of Integrated Airports Systems (NPIAS) are eligible for AIP funding. Public/Private Eligibility Funding is primarily directed to public agencies and public airports; however, private airports are eligible upon meeting certain criteria or upon select designation by the FAA. Surface Transportation Program (23 USC 133) Potential Air/Rail Collaborative Planning The program funds transportation projects linked to any federal­aid highway, including planning activities. It empha­ sizes highway and rail projects; however, no restrictions appear to exist upon the use of STP funds for intermodal projects, and air/rail planning would presumably be eligible as long as the proposed project incorporated an element of a federal­aid highway as well. Formula funding is used. Available Funding, Cost Sharing and Continuing Financial Obligations STP funds are derived primarily from federal fuel taxes that are deposited in the Highway Trust Fund, with additional spending from the general fund as deemed appropriate. Fed­ eral share is 80% for the majority of projects, with high federal share for certain safety­related or interstate projects. Application Complexity and Rigor Projects must be in accordance with either state or metro­ politan transportation planning to gain eligibility for STP funds (23 USC 134 and 135). As stated earlier, projects also must connect in some fashion to a federal­aid highway. Other­ wise, STP employs flexible criteria in evaluating projects, with few restrictions attached to any element of the transportation process, including planning. environmental criteria; however, funding eligibility is deter­ mined through 23 USC 104, thereby encompassing intermodal projects and planning activities that are traditionally eligible for Title 23 funding. The program has been used to fund inter­ modal air/rail projects in the past, and air/rail planning could be eligible upon meeting the particular environmental crite­ ria of the program. Examples include Hiawatha Light Rail at Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport. Available Funding, Cost Sharing and Continuing Financial Obligations Funding by state is determined through a formula that weighs a number of factors, particularly a state’s population and its designated ozone and carbon monoxide nonattain­ ment and maintenance areas. Federal share of all eligible projects is 80%. Application Complexity and Rigor Eligibility criteria are largely determined by the status of a project vis­à­vis “an area in the state that is or was desig­ nated as a nonattainment area for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter” under the Clean Air Act. However, some discretion lies with the Secretary of Transportation and the Administrator of the EPA to approve a broader category of eligible projects. Furthermore, states that have never had nonattainment areas possess nearly complete flexibility in submitting projects under the program; they must merely demonstrate that the project “would otherwise be eligible under this section,” or be eligible for funding under the Sur­ face Transportation Program (23 USC 133). Public/Private Eligibility Funding is primarily directed towards public agencies. How­ ever, public/private cooperation is permitted and encouraged. Airport Improvement Program (49 USC 471), FAA Potential Air/Rail Collaborative Planning This program funds public agencies (“sponsors”) for airport development, including all necessary planning activities. Cer­ tain types of air/rail projects are eligible for AIP funding. The program operates as a competitive grant funding mechanism. Available Funding, Cost Sharing and Continuing Financial Obligations AIP funds are derived from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, supported by user fees, fuel taxes and other revenue

133 Urbanized Area Formula Program (49 USC 5307) Potential Air/Rail Collaborative Planning This program funds urbanized areas, either through state or local public agencies, for transportation projects. Planning activities are explicitly sanctioned as legitimate activities. Inter­ modal projects are not specifically mentioned in the statu­ tory language, but considerable flexibility exists on the part of the petitioning agency, as long as the project is eligible under Title 49. Formula funding is used. Available Funding, Cost Sharing and Continuing Financial Obligations Funding levels are determined in accordance with particu­ lar formulas. Areas with a population between 50,000 and 199,999 are granted funding solely on the basis of population and population density. Areas with a population of greater than 200,000 are subject to a more complex formula that takes into account various transportation figures (such as bus revenue vehicle miles) as well as population and popu­ lation density. Maximum federal share of all eligible costs is 80%. Application Complexity and Rigor Projects must be consistent with broader state and metro­ politan planning processes (for example, 49 USC 5303). Urbanized areas with populations between 50,000 and 199,999 must dedicate at least 1% of their funding to “transit enhance­ ments” as defined by 49 USC 5302. Public/Private Eligibility Funding is exclusively directed to public agencies: either metropolitan organizations (for areas with a population greater than 200,000) or an organization to be designated by the governor of the state (for areas with a population between 50,000 and 199,999). State Block Grant Program (49 USC 47128) FAA Potential Air/Rail Collaborative Planning The program funds airport improvement projects by permitting 10 designated states to assume responsibility for the distribution of their allocated funding under the Air­ port Improvement Program (49 USC 471) in the form of an annual block grant. Eligible projects under AIP are similarly eligible for funding from a state block grant, including eligible Public/Private Eligibility Funding is intended solely for public agencies, specifically state and metropolitan transportation agencies. Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program (RRIF) (45 USC 822) FRA Potential Air/Rail Collaborative Planning RRIF funds improvements in rail infrastructure. Inter­ modal rail projects—not limited in any fashion, and therefore including air/rail—are specifically noted as a priority. How­ ever, the primary focus of the program is capital funding, rather than planning. Yet program guidelines do include the “development or establishment of new intermodal or railroad facilities,” and FRA guidelines do not explicitly bar planning activities from program funding. As a result, some flexibility for air/rail planning does exist, although the initial lack of capital projects is an impediment that must be overcome. Finding mechanism is Direct Loans and Loan Guarantees. Available Funding, Cost Sharing and Continuing Financial Obligations The program authorizes $35 billion in loan authority to DOT. Loan repayment must be completed within 35 years from the date of the initial loan, although the specific repay­ ment schedule for a given project will be determined on a case­by­case basis. The program does not have a separate appropriation for direct loans. As a result, the cost to the government of pro­ viding the loan is passed on to the applicant in the form of a Credit Risk Premium, which is calculated based upon the projected risk of default. Application Complexity and Rigor Projects must meet a number of requirements in order to qualify for RRIF funding. Applicants must demonstrate that the loan is justified by both present and future demand for the proposed project. They must also establish that the obli­ gation can be “reasonably repaid” and that capital operations can be sustained for the duration of the loan financing with­ out recourse to the financing, since operating expenses are barred from the program. Public/Private Eligibility Funding can be directed towards both public agencies and private entities, such as railroads. Joint partnerships are per­ mitted, so long as the partnership includes at least one railroad.

134 Application Complexity and Rigor Eligibility criteria are broad; few obstacles immediately present themselves, although the program does emphasize “new and innovative” activities. Public/Private Eligibility Funding is intended for public agencies, namely state and metropolitan planning organizations, as well as local govern­ ments. However, private entities may apply for funding along with a sponsoring public agency. Projects of National and Regional Significance Program (SAFETEA-LU Section 1301) Potential Air/Rail Collaborative Planning The program funds high cost surface transportation proj­ ects that possess particular importance to national or regional interests, whether in the realm of economic growth, infra­ structure security or technological innovation. The statutory language is deliberately broad, creating significant flexibility in the range of potential projects. Project eligibility under Title 23 qualifies a project for funding under this program (subject to a variety of other restrictions, discussed herein). Planning activities are explicitly included as an eligible com­ ponent of a given project. Thus, air/rail planning activities eligible for any Title 23 funding program meet the threshold. Available Funding, Cost Sharing and Continuing Financial Obligations The federal share of all eligible project costs is 80%. The program operates through competitive grants. Application Complexity and Rigor In addition to eligibility under Title 23, proposed projects must meet one of two additional requirements: the total eli­ gible cost of the project must either be at least $500 million or constitute at least 75% of a state’s annual federal highway assistance funding. Despite this considerable cost require­ ment, planning activities are still eligible for funding, as long as they represent the initial phase of a project that has a pro­ jected cost in line with the program framework. Public/Private Eligibility Funding is exclusively directed to state transportation agencies, although the size and complexity of eligible projects air/rail intermodal planning activities, albeit with one addi­ tional restraint: “integrated airport system planning” is not an eligible activity. Also, primary airports are barred from receiving funding from a state block grant. Available Funding, Cost Sharing and Continuing Financial Obligations Available funding is equivalent to the amount that would have been distributed to the state under the standard AIP process. Application Complexity and Rigor States seeking to win a designation as a Block Grant recipi­ ent must overcome several hurdles. DOT must determine that the state is capable of administering the block grant properly; that the state possesses a satisfactory airport system planning process; and that the state programming process is acceptable by federal standards. DOT places particular emphasis upon the state’s ability to maintain safety and security standards in the distribution of funding to airport improvement projects. Public/Private Eligibility Funding is exclusively directed to state transportation agencies. Transportation, Community and System Preservation Program (SAFETEA-LU Section 1117), FHWA Potential Air/Rail Collaborative Planning The program funds planning and research for comprehen­ sive transportation initiatives, focusing upon the relationship between transportation and the larger community. Program language is deliberately broad, encouraging innovative solu­ tions and creative interpretations that address transportation efficiency alongside environmental impact and economic development. Planning activities are a primary focus of the program. The program operates through competitive grants. Intermodal projects are not specifically mentioned, but eli­ gibility standards are expansive enough to incorporate air/ rail planning. Available Funding, Cost Sharing and Continuing Financial Obligations The federal share of funding is 80% for selected projects.

135 of funding to a project in the hope of testing the project’s efficacy. These pilot programs can support air/rail intermodal planning if the structure of the program renders the planning activities eligible. The FAA’s Sustainable Master Plan Pilot Program has been conceived with the potential to fund air/rail planning. Pilot programs can be a useful source of funding for a specific project, as the programs often encourage flexibility in project design, but the limited funding at their disposal can produce an extremely competitive application process. Further­ more, pilot programs cannot support large­scale air/rail plan­ ning efforts and lack the resources to sustain anything more than a solitary project. Thus, while pilot programs can be useful for creative air/rail planning activities that have the poten­ tial to become models for future use, they have limited utility in supporting air/rail planning of a more substantial nature. Capital-Only Programs A final noteworthy—and unfortunate—feature of the fed­ eral government’s intermodal transportation funding struc­ ture is the prevalence of programs that restrict their funding support to capital expenditures. While some programs declare a wide range of activities associated with transportation proj­ ects to be eligible, including planning activities, many other programs explicitly establish that only capital expenditures are qualified to receive federal funding. This removes a signif­ icant source of federal transportation funding from consid­ eration for air/rail intermodal planning. For example, two of the three funding programs established by the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008—the High­Speed Rail Corridor Development Program and the Congestion Relief Program—both restrict their eligibility to capital proj­ ects. Such language is common among federal transportation programs and represents an impediment to federal support for state and local intermodal planning. How State and Local Programs Work Together with Federal Planning Programs Federal funding mechanisms for air/rail intermodal plan­ ning exist, but in order to be fully utilized, they depend on state and metropolitan transportation agencies to develop creative processes. Even with agency flexibility, the lack of emphasis among federal funding programs for intermodal planning and the absence of a rational structure for distrib­ uting funding to intermodal projects will place significant obstacles in the way of any comprehensive effort to acquire federal assistance for air/rail planning. In this context, state and metropolitan agencies seeking funding for air/rail inter­ modal planning may have no choice but to pursue multiple creates a situation in which coordination with local planning agencies and private entities is encouraged. Efficient Environmental Reviews for Project Decision Making Program (23 USC 139), FHWA Potential Air/Rail Collaborative Planning The program funds federal, state and metropolitan trans­ portation agencies that are obligated to prepare an environ­ mental impact statement under NEPA in order to ensure that the environmental review process is conducted in an appro­ priate time frame that does not undermine the proposed project. Intermodal projects that are eligible for funding through 49 USC 53 are eligible for funding under the pro­ gram, and “transportation planning activities that precede the initiation of the environmental review process” are eli­ gible for funding as well. Thus, air/rail planning activities that meet the threshold of Title 49 are eligible for funding to assist in the completion of the environmental review process. The program operates through competitive grants. Available Funding, Cost Sharing and Continuing Financial Obligations Available funding is at the discretion of the Secretary of Transportation, for the amount deemed necessary to support “activities that directly and meaningfully contribute to expe­ diting and improving transportation project planning and delivery . . . for the projects . . . participating in the environ­ mental review process.” There are no specific appropriations for this program; the Secretary of Transportation is permitted to fund it from “funds so made available under this title [23] or such Chapter 53 [of title 49] to affected agencies . . . participating in the environmental review process. . . .” Application Complexity and Rigor Projects must be “subject to the environmental review pro­ cess established under this section and for which funds are made available to a State under this title or Chapter 53 of Title 49.” Public/Private Eligibility Funding is exclusively directed towards public agencies. Transportation Pilot Programs The federal government may create, at its discretion, transportation pilot programs to provide a limited amount

136 The 24 examples of the intermodal planning reviewed in this report are presented in Table 9­1, in the order in which they appear in the report. In most cases, the planning efforts have been funded by a combination of federal and non­ federal sources. This dependence of several funding sources parallels what is known about the funding projects in general, funding paths, based upon the circumstances of the project or plan. The task of merging these funding paths to create a truly integrated system of intermodal transportation facili­ ties will be difficult, but given the current structure of federal assistance creative solutions may have to be developed at the state and local level. Project Dominant Federal Program State / Local Role in Planning Process Chapter 3, which included 1 BWI to Amtrak NECIP Minor 2 Burbank to Amtrak Amtrak Airport funding consolidated rental car center and walkway 3 Milwaukee Airport to Amtrak Airport runs shuttle bus 4 T. F. Green to MBTA Grants from FHWA See case study in this Chapter 5 Newark Airport to Amtrak & NJ Transit PFC (present), Unknown (future) PANYNJ Revenues Chapter 5, which included 6 The Northeast Corridor Improvement Project NECIP Will increase under PRIIA 7 NEC Future Mandated by PRIIA, included in HSIPR No local funds 8 The Northeast Corridor Commission Mandated by PRIIA Will increase under PRIIA 9 The Amtrak Business Plan Internal Internal 10 The Regional Plan Association None PANYNJ Chapter 6, which included 11 Chicago O’Hare Master Plan FAA Planning Funds Internal 12 Midwest High-Speed Rail Association Plan No Private Donors 13 The Midwest Regional Rail Initiative Rail FRA, approved HSR Corridor Major role from nine states 14 SNCF HSR Proposal to FRA None Private Company Chapter 7, which included 15 The Regional Aviation Systems Plan Analysis FAA Planning Funds MPO Participants 16 The Planning Process within the SFO Unknown Airport internal funding 17 The California High-Speed Rail Authority FRA State bond issues Chapter 8, which included 18 The Destination Lindbergh Planning Study MPO Planning Funds MPO local share 19 The Regional Airport Systems Plan FAA Planning Funds Airport operating funds 20 Airport Multimodal Accessibility Plan MPO Planning Funds MPO local share Chapter 12, which included 21 Denver International Airport Commuter Rail FAA Planning Funds Airport internal funding 22 Miami Intermodal Center TIFIA State project funds, state investment bank 23 Orlando Airport Intermodal Terminal FAA Planning Funds Airport internal funding 24 JFK to Jamaica PFC PANYNJ Internal Funding Table 9-1. Combinations of federal and non-federal funding used in planning 24 air/rail projects.

137 Case Study: The Miami Intermodal Center The Miami Intermodal Center (Figure 9­1) is the largest single intermodal project undertaken in the United States. With a capital cost of somewhat over 2 billion dollars, this is larger than the JFK AirTrain project, estimated to cost $1.9 billion, or the $1.5 billion for the SFO BART Extension, both more than a decade earlier (Gosling et al., 2012). There are four major component elements of the MIC project. The largest element, at over $700 million, is the Miami Central Station, where Amtrak is now scheduled to provide service. The Central Station facility has both a commuter rail/ intercity rail station and a rapid transit station, with locations for bus and taxi services. The cost for Metrorail and Metro­ bus facilities is $518 million, including $52 million for the people­mover within the station and $152 million for the rest of the station facilities (Florida DOT 2012). The consolidated rental car facility costs somewhat under $400 million with the people­mover connection at about $270 million; road improvements in this budget are under $190 million. As shown in Figure 9­3, these component costs do include costs shared over the entire project, including right­of­way and environmental site preparation. (The char­ acteristics of the air/rail connection are briefly discussed in Chapter 12 of this report.) The history of the evolution of the funding program includes the receipt of $433 million in TIFIA loans. Parts of those loans have been repaid, and partly restructured to benefit from loan programs now available within the state government. Fig­ ure 9­4 shows the funding mechanisms defined by the Florida DOT in their year 2012 report on expenditures associated with FHWA’s original TIFIA loan agreement. FDOT’s 2012 analysis stresses the role of projects funded through the established Transportation Improvement Plan, and the Long­Range Transportation Plan, together compris­ ing about half of this budget. This present analysis by FDOT rather than funding the planning efforts. The American Associ­ ation of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) reports that, for transportation expenditures as a whole, the states raised $80.5 billion (44%), the local governments raised $66.4 billion (36%), while the federal government raised only $37.9 billion (20%) in their study year (2004). In many cases the role of the federal government in planning is more dominant than it is in actual project implementation and construction. A review of Table 9­1 suggests that the great majority of planning activities covered in this report were, in fact, undertaken under encouragement of a federal plan­ ning program or requirement. Thus, initiative for actions in this area most often stems from existing planning programs encouraged or mandated by federal action and regulation. Early identification of airport access needs could come from the Metropolitan Planning Organization, whose purview is indeed multimodal and multi­jurisdictional. The MPOs, while managed locally, were developed in response to federal mandates, and are funded with federal dollars. Two Case Studies In order to explore the complexity of project funding mechanisms for projects actually built, Chapter 9 presents two case studies. The first, the Miami Intermodal Center (MIC) adjacent to Miami International Airport (Figure 9­2) had early funding from a FHWA TIFIA loan, a condition of which was the creation of annual reports to the public describ­ ing progress on, and alternations to, the budget established at the time of the loan approval, which included a line item for preliminary engineering and environmental documenta­ tion. The second, the Interlink Project at T. F. Green Airport, which serves Providence Rhode Island, received its early major funding support from an “earmarked” grant from the Federal Highway Administration, with a variety of funding mecha­ nisms added over time. Figure 9-1. The planning for the Miami Intermodal Center was partially funded by a federal TIFIA Loan, which will be repaid from a variety of state and local sources. Source: Miami Intermodal Center, Florida DOT. Figure 9-2. Projected revenues from the Consolidated Rental Car Facility play a key role in the strategy to repay the TIFIA Loans used to construct the Miami Intermodal Center. Source: Florida DOT Miami Intermodal Center.

138 Right of Way & Environmental $339,524,000 Miami Central Station $721,978,000 Road Improvements $186,651,000 MIA Mover Connector $269,762,000 Rental Car Facility $395,049,000 Capitalized interest, “other” $109,841,000 Total $2,022,805,000 Figure 9-3. Project components of the Miami Intermodal Center. TIP/LRTP and prior (federal) $59,775,000 3.0% TIP/LRTP and prior plus other state $962,757,000 47.6% Airport Capital Improvement plan $155,196,000 7.7% Dedicated revenues from RCC $113,496,000 5.6% Miami-Dade expressway tolls $86,468,000 4.3% Ancillary revenues $17,783,000 0.9% TIFIA loans plus capitalized interest $312,305,000 15.4% State transportation trust Fund loan $245,140,000 12.1% State Investment Bank Loan $69,885,000 3.5% Total $2,022,805,000 100.0% Figure 9-4. Funding mechanisms for the Miami MIC (2012).

139 Providence to Warwick (Figure 9­5). MBTA service between Boston and Providence has been in existence since 1988. The plan expanded to develop an intermodal facility to central­ ize all existing and future ground transportation services, including Amtrak, commuter rail, Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA), intercity bus, and rental cars. The Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RI DOT) conducted a Rail Corridor Feasibility Study in 1994 to deter­ mine the potential for the use of existing rights­of­way for public transportation facilities and services using light rail, commuter rail, or busway technologies (Rhode Island Depart­ ment of Transportation 1994). RI DOT analyzed nine rail cor­ ridors in the state and selected six with the best potential for public transportation. The Amtrak Northeast Corridor Shore Line was determined to provide the easiest opportunity to develop a fixed­guideway line in Rhode Island and the study recommended that the development of commuter rail service on the Amtrak Shore Line could proceed incrementally. The study was funded through a Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grant program. The story of the early development has been chronicled in an article in Public Roads Magazine, written with the par­ ticipation of Steven Devine, RI DOT’s Chief of Intermodal Planning, whom the Research Team interviewed to follow up on key aspects of that article. In 1997, former Governor Lincoln Almond, and then­ Mayor of Warwick, Lincoln Chafee, proposed the airport train station idea and estimated a price tag of $15 million (Liberman 1997). By the next year the price was estimated at $25 million, including a people­mover to connect to the train station. In 1998, Congress authorized $25 million for the Rhode Island Integrated Intermodal Transportation facil­ ity with an earmark in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (Public Law 105­178). shows that the overwhelming majority of those programmed funds were non­federal in nature. It is difficult to define the exact cost of “planning” a $2 bil­ lion transportation project with a wide variety of sub­elements within this overall budget. The Research Team knows that of the $1.35 billion total project budget included in the July 1999 TIFIA application by the Florida DOT, the sum of $22,737,000 was allocated to “PE, Feasibility Studies and NEPA.” That number fell to under $22 million in the 2002 budget, where it remained until 2012. Another line item called “Design­2” authorized $123,426 for design activities, which had been lowered to $97,225 million by 2012. A Case Study of State Funding: T.F. Green Airport and Interlink Intermodal Facility, Warwick, RI T.F. Green Airport is a primary commercial service air­ port, owned by the State of Rhode Island and operated by the Rhode Island Airport Corporation (RIAC), which man­ ages all publicly owned airports within the state. In 2010, T.F. Green Airport served approximately 3.9 million passengers with over 220 daily aircraft operations (i.e., aircraft landing or departing) (T.F. Green Airport 2010). It occupies 1,100 acres of land and is located in the City of Warwick, RI, six miles south of the City of Providence. The airport is accessible via several major regional and national roadways, including Interstate Highways I­95 and I­295, U.S. Route 1, and State Routes 10 and 37. As discussed in Chapter 3, the Interlink is an intermodal transportation facility, constructed about 1,500 feet west of the airport, which connects to the airport via a covered sky­ walk with moving walkways. The facility includes a consoli­ dated rental car facility, commuter car parking, and a heavy rail train platform on the Amtrak­owned right­of­way of the Northeast Corridor line used for commuter service between Wickford Junction, Warwick, Providence, and Boston. The rail platform is integrated with the 2,500 parking space, six­ level parking garage with a rental car facility that houses all airport rental car operations, including storage, washing, and fueling facilities. The intermodal facility is on a former chem­ ical distribution brownfield site. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, state and local officials began discussing the need for a rail station south of Providence along the I­95 corridor. Congestion on I­95 and the economic development of the area south of Providence were important considerations when considering a rail link. Importantly, in 1992, the City of Warwick’s elected officials proposed a train station next to the airport (Lord 1992). Initially, the plan was to build a train platform near the airport to accommodate an extension of Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) commuter rail service from Figure 9-5. The Interlink project at T. F. Green is served by MBTA commuter rail. Source: Rhode Island Department of Transportation–Intermodal Planning.

140 extend the MBTA commuter rail service south of Providence to Warwick and North Kingstown. As shown Figure 9­6, FHWA summarizes that funding for this project included about 155.7 million in federal and state matching grants, with a combination of bonds, loans and customer charges at $111.2 million. The RIAC and RI DOT closed the TIFIA loan of $42 million in FY 2006. The TIFIA loan is secured by customer facility charges imposed by RIAC on people renting cars at the airports and payments by the rental car companies for tenant improvements in the intermodal facility. With the pieces in place, and the General Assembly and rental car companies on board, the governor broke ground for the new train station in July 2006. The breakthrough with the rental car companies came when they agreed to relocate their operations from the airport into the new facility and to collect customer facility charges to subsidize operations and debt repayment for the project. RIAC led the effort to enter a new concession agreement with all nine rental car agencies serving T.F. Green. This was a challenge for RIAC, as the nine agencies do not speak with a unified voice. Construction of the project began in fall 2007 and the facility was opened in October 2010. The first MBTA trains arrived for revenue service in December 2010. The planning, construction, and operation of the inter­ modal facility required strong public­private partnerships across multiple jurisdictions. According to RIDOT Direc­ tor Michael P. Lewis, construction is proving to be the easy part. Quoted in The Providence Journal July 17, 2009, he said, “What people can’t see is the jigsaw puzzle of Federal and State agencies, agreements, financing bundles, and engineering Subsequent to the Congressional authorization, the RIDOT submitted a proposal and environmental assessment for the Warwick Intermodal Station to the Federal Highway Admin­ istration (FHWA) to construct an Amtrak and commuter rail station in the Hillsgrove area of the City of Warwick along the Northeast Corridor (NEC) and provide a people­mover con­ nection between the train station and T.F. Green Airport. The FHWA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in 1999 (Rhode Island Department of Transportation 1999). On March 27, 2001, and again on February 1, 2002, RI DOT submitted environmental re­evaluation to FHWA for proj­ ect change from a surface parking lot with a stand­alone station to a multi­level parking garage, station, and consoli­ dated rental car facility. FHWA accepted the findings that additional environmental impacts could be mitigated with the actions described in the re­evaluations (Rhode Island Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Adminis­ tration 2001). The proposed project was included in the State’s 2001 trans­ portation plan (Rhode Island Department of Administration 2001) and the RI DOT’s July 2001 South County Commuter Rail Service Operations Plan (South County Commuter Rail Service 2001). The South County Operations plan recom­ mended the extension of commuter rail service, provided by the MBTA, 20 miles south from Providence to Wickford Junc­ tion. The FTA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact to the South County Commuter Rail Environmental Assessment on February 26, 2003 (Doyle 2003). Complicating the land acquisition procedure was that RIDOT was to own the land where the airport and inter modal facility are situated, while Amtrak owns the tracks where MBTA transit was to run the commuter service. In addition, the RIAC was to be in charge of operations. The difficulty of obtaining agreements among these entities challenged the project from the beginning, according to the Research Team’s interviews. A combination of state and federal funds, bonds, customer facility charges, and revenues were slated to be used to finance the facility. The RIAC had planned to invest $130 million in the people­mover and a garage that would consolidate rental car facilities and solve parking limitations at the airport. But, the events of 9/11 caused all parties to be concerned about their ability to pay for the facility. Governor Donald L. Carcieri took office in 2003 and renewed negotiations with the various stakeholders. Also in 2003, RIDOT proposed the skywalk in place of the people­ mover to lower operational and maintenance costs. By then, RIDOT had made all land purchases for the project. In 2005, the new United States surface transportation law, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA­LU, Public Law 109­59), autho­ rized RIDOT to proceed with negotiations with Amtrak to Figure 9-6. Funding mechanisms used by Rhode Island DOT. FHWA Grants $124,600,000 Amount $31,100,000 TIFIA Loans $42,000,000 First-Lien Bonds Customer Facility Charges State Matching Grants Funding Mechanisms Total Funding $39,600,000 $29,600,000 $266,900,000

141 Doyle, R. H., Regional Administrator, Federal Transit Administration. 2003 (February 26). Letter to James Capaldi, Director, Department of Transportation, Providence, Rhode Island, RE: South County Commuter Rail Project Environmental Assessment Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). FHWA Innovative Program Delivery Office, Project Profiles: Interlink (formerly Warwick Intermodal Station), undated. Accessed at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/ri_warwick.htm. Florida Department of Transportation, Miami Intermodal center, Ninth Annual Financial Plan Update, May 31, 2012 Gosling, G. D., W. Wei, and D. Freeman. 2012. “Collaborative Funding to Facilitate Airport Ground Access (Report 11­27).” Mineta Trans­ portation Institute (MTI), San José State University, San José, CA. Liberman, E. 1997 (June 12). “$15­million rail station proposed at air­ port.” The Providence Journal­Bulletin. Lord, P. 1992 (May 11). “Warwick proposes train stop at airport.” The Providence Journal. Rhode Island Department of Transportation. 1994 (November). “Rail Corridor Feasibility Study.” Rhode Island Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Admin­ istration. 1999 (May). “Warwick Intermodal Station at T. F. Green Airport, Warwick, Rhode Island, Environmental Assessment.” Rhode Island Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Admin­ istration. 2001. “State Ground Transportation Plan, 2001 Update, Element 611: Transportation 2020.” South County Commuter Rail Service. 2001 (July). “Providence to Westerly Operations Plan Executive Summary.” Prepared by Edwards and Kelcey Inc. for the Rhode Island Department of Transportation. T. F. Green Airport. 2010 (December). “Monthly Airport Passenger Activity Summary, RIAC.” logistics that had to be pieced together. The $267 million bur­ den is being shared by RIAC, the Federal Government, and the State through a combination of bonds, grants, and revenue streams.” Partners include RIDOT, Economic Development Cor­ poration (EDC), RIAC, the Rhode Island Division Office of FHWA, Amtrak, the MBTA, the FTA, FRA, the City of Warwick, and rental car companies. RIDOT continues to explore enhanced rail connections at the Interlink today. Alternatives include expanded MBTA commuter rail service to Providence and Boston, an in­state rail shuttle (Diesel Multiple Unit) service between Warwick and Providence, and adding an Amtrak intercity rail stop at T.F. Green/Interlink. Amtrak has recently agreed to revisit the concept of developing a NEC Regional Service station stop by undertaking a ridership demand and marketing analy­ sis. RIDOT has estimated a capital cost of approximately $100 million for new siding, interlocking, electrification, and a station building (Devine 2012). Bibliography Bobba, C., A. L. Clarke, S. Devine, and N. Davis. 2010. “Small State, Big Vision” Public Roads Magazine, FHWA, March April 2010, Volume 73–No. 5, FHWA accessed at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ publications/publicroads/10mar/01.cfm. Devine, S. (RIDOT Director of Planning). 2012 (September 7). Personal conversation.