HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06062000 - U1 TO: Board of Supervisors0.
Centra
FROM: Transportation, Water and Infrastructure
Costa
Committee - County
DATE: June 5, 2000
SUBJECT: Adopt Positions on Transportation-Related Legislation
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
SUPPORT WITH AMENDMENTS
SB 1629 (Sher-D) This bill requires increased pedestrian and bicycle access on
state and local roadways constructed after January 1, 2002
unless exceptions which are defined in the legislation are
found. Suggested amendments include a re-evaluation of
CalTrans bikeway design standards and a requirement that
CalTrans reimburse local jurisdictions for additional
construction costs.
SB 2017 (Perata-D) This bill requires, the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) to determine by January 1, 2002,
whether local governments are implementing their fair share
of housing starts, as well as participating in regional
congestion reduction plan. Suggested amendments would
focus the bill on a local jurisdiction's consistency with state
housing law rather than the number of housing starts.
SUPPORT
HR 3630 (Isakson—R) This House bill would make inter-city rail services eligible for
funding with federal gas tax revenues, which are the source
of most federal funding programs for transportation. Current
federal law excludes inter-city rail, such as the Capitol
Corridor, from eligibility for gas tax funds.
5.1144 (Voinovich-R) This Senate bili also provides federal funding eligibility for
inter-city rail services, along with numerous other changes
to federal transportation funding policy.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATORs RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
_APPROVE OTHER ,
SIGNATURE(S):SU VISOR JOHN GIOIA SUP VISOR GAVCtB. UILKEMA
ACTION OF BOARD ON ,,r �c�.�� APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED`"�
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
)(UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
SHOWN.
Contact: Daniel J. Pulon, AICD (9251335-1241) °
cc: Community Development Department (CDD) ATTESTED
Legislative Delegation P BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
Smith & Kempton E BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
z/11 rte,
sAadv-tranlohn MlegislationUl bills.doc
BY , DEPUTY
Adopt Positions on Transportation-Related Legislation
June 5, 2000
Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT
SB 1629 could impose a fiscal burden by incurring additional construction costs in
complying with the requirements of the legislation.
Both HR 3630 and SB 1144 could result in more funding for inter-city rail service in
Contra Costa County, since the Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin's services would
become eligible to apply for federal gas tax-derived funding programs through the
Contra Costa Transportation Authority and Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
SB 1629 (Sher-D) Highways: Good Roads for the 21 st Century Act (see Exhibit A):
Current law provides that pedestrians and bicyclists have the right to travel on almost all
local roads and state highways. Nothing, however, requires these roads to be designed in
a way that ensures the safety and accommodation of these lawful users. This bill requires
increased pedestrian and bicycle access on state and local roadways. Rational restrictions
included in the bill provide exceptions in certain circumstances. Exceptions include
situations where public safety is a concern, where sparse population indicates an absence
of need, where cost is disproportionate to need or use, among others. This legislation may
improve cost-effectiveness of bicycle and pedestrian access by including facilities in the
initial design and construction. Suggested amendments include:
• Passage of the bill should trigger a re-evaluation of CalTrans Bikeway Design
standards, particularly in the case of freeway and highway facilities. Any re-evaluation
should take place in cooperation with local jurisdictions.
• CalTrans should reimburse local jurisdictions for costs incurred if a facility outside
the state right-of-way is designated for pedestrian or bicycle access as an
alternative to access on the state highway.
SB 2017 (Perata-D) Local Planning (see Exhibit B):
The bill would require Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association
of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to establish policy criteria, relative to jobs and housing
balance, to evaluate local government participation in regional congestion reduction
planning and implementation of fair share of housing starts.
Relative to regional fair share of housing starts, existing Government Code Sections (GCS)
65580 and 65584 require local governments to facilitate the improvement and development
of housing while considering such factors as market demand, suitable sites, available
public facilities, and commute patterns. This bill, in its current form, focuses on the
implementation of fair share housing starts, which is affected by many factors beyond the
control of cities and counties.
It is recommended that language referencing housing `starts" be removed and replaced
with language from GCS 65580 and 65584.
HR 3630 (Isakson-R): Funding Flexibility and High Speed Rail Corridors (see Exhibit C):
Current federal law prohibits inter-city rail services from being eligible for funding through
any programs derived from federal gas tax revenues. This exclusion was intended to limit
the amount of public subsidy that would be available to Amtrak. This bill would change
federal law to provide certain passenger rail projects with eligibility for federal highway
funds, including the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, and rehabilitation of, and
preventative maintenance for, inter-city rail passenger facilities and rolling stock. The bill
would mean such projects could apply for Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds
and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds, through the regional funding
cycles administered by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission. Both the Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin's services would
thus receive eligibility to apply for such funds.
5.1144 (Voinovich-R): Surface Transportation Act of 1999 (see Exhibit D for excerpts of bill):
This bill would have the same impact as HR 3630, above, regarding the provision of federal
gas-tax funding eligibility for inter-city rail services. This bill also would make numerous
other changes that would clarify funding requirements in other categories such as historic
bridges, railroad grade crossings and commercial vehicle registration.
EXHIBIT A �
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 9,2000
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 2, 2000
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 24, 2000
SENATE BILL No. 1629
Introduced by Senator Sher
February 22, 2000
An act to add Section 894.5 to the Streets and Highways
Code,relating to highways.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL;S DIGEST
SB 1629, as amended, Sher. highways: pedestrian and
bicycle access.
(1) Existing law requires the Department of
Transportation to publish a statewide map illustrating state
highway routes available for the use of bicycles, and, where
bicycles are prohibited from using a state highway, illustrating
alternative routes available to the bicyclist. Existing law
requires the department to establish design and safety criteria
for bicycle roadways. Existing law authorizes a local authority
to establish bikeways, and creates the Bicycle Transportation
Account in the State Transportation Fund to provide funds for
bicycle transportation.
This bill would require bicycle and pedestrian access on all
highways constructed, as defined, after a specified date unless
exceptions are found by the responsible agency after a public
hearing, as prescribed. The bill would also make legislative
findings and declarations.
96
I
SB 1629 —2—
To
2----
To the extent that this bill would require local entities to
construct pedestrian and bicycle paths in conjunction with
construction of highways, it would impose a state-mandated
local program.
(2) The California Constitution requires the state to
reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs
mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish
procedures for making that reimbursement, including the
creation of a State Mandates Claims Fund to pay the costs of
mandates that do not exceed $1,000,000 statewide and other
procedures for claims whose statewide costs exceed
$1,000,000.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State
Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by
the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made
pursuant to these statutory provisions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program:yes.
The people of the State of California dry enact as follows:
1 SECTION 1. Section 894.5 is added to the Streets and
2 Highways Code,to read:
3 894.5. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of
4 the following:
5 (1) The use of highways for purposes of travel and
LL 6 transportation is a common and fundamental right, and
7 that all persons have an equal right to use these
8 thoroughfares for travel by appropriate means, and with
9 due regard to the rights of others.
10 (2) It is the policy of this state to provide an integrated
11 and balanced transportation system for the use of all
12 persons, including the young, the elderly, the
13 disadvantaged, and those with disabilities.
14 (3) Enabling the public to use a variety of travel
15 modes, including walking and bicycling, contributes to
16 the public health, facilitates access to schools, jobs,
17 shopping, recreation, and other daily needs, and creates
18 a sense of local community identity and pride.
96
I
-3— SB 1629
1 (4) Making streets and roads more usable by
2 pedestrians and bicyclists reduces traffic congestion on
3 those streets and roads.
4 (5) In order to maximize these benefits, the design of
5 the highways of California should address the needs of
6 nonmotorized, as well as motorized transportation.
7 (b) (1) This section shall be known as, and may be
8 cited, as the Good Roads for the 21st Century Act.
9 (2) Every highway, other than a freeway, constructed
10 by the department or local authority, on or after January
I1 1, 2002, shall include sidewalks, paths, walkways, or
12 equivalent facilities on both sides of the highway for use
13 by pedestrians. This subdivision does not apply to any
14 highway for which the final design has been approved by
15 the department or the appropriate local authority, if the
16 department or local authority begins construction of the
17 highway on or before January 1,2003.
18 (c) Every highway constructed by the department or
19 local authority commencing on or after January 1, 2002,
20 shall include accommodation for bicycle travel.
21 (d) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
22 accommodation shall be by shared roadway or by bike
23 lane as described in subdivision (b) of Section 890.4. For
24 purposes of this section, a shared roadway includes a
25 shoulder.
26 (2) On a highway that is a freeway, the
27 accommodation shall be by shoulder or bike path, as
28 described in subdivision(a)of Section 890.4.
29 (e) All facilities constructed to accommodate
30 bicyclists under this section shall conform to the
31 minimum safety design criteria and uniform standards
32 established by the department pursuant to Sections 890.6
33 and 890.8.
34 (f) Any maintenance to a highway by the department
35 or any local authority performed on or after January 1,
36 2002, shall, at a minimum, maintain the existing level of
37 pedestrian and bicycle access and safety features along
38 and across the highway.
39 (g) Every new toll bridge and every toll bridge that is
40 substantially reconstructed or that is modified to increase
96
Gli � r
SB 2629 —4-
1
4--
1 its vehicle carrying capacity shall provide a sidewalk or
2 path for use by pedestrians, and a shoulder, bike lane, or
3 bike path for use by bicyclists.
4 (h) Subdivisions (b) to (f), inclusive, do not apply if
5 the particular agency finds, after conducting a public
6 hearing, eith any of the following:
7 (1) Providing the pedestrian or bicycle access is
8 contrary to public safety.
9 (2). An alternative route exists that is equally safe and
10 convenient in terms of travel time and effort, or an
11 alternative route meeting these criteria will be provided
12 as part of the construction project.
13 (3) The cost of the facilities would be disproportionate )The department will reexamine
14 to projected need or use. the bikeway standards and criteria in
15 (4) Sparse population or other factors indicate an the Bikeway Planning and Design
16 absence of any need. Chapter of the Highway Design
17 (5) Significant adverse environmental effects would Manual.The reexamination will take
18 result from inclusion of the facilities. place in cooperation with the
19 (i) (1) For purposes of this section, "construction" Regional Transportation Planning
20 means any of the following: Agencies.
21 (A) New construction. (k)The department will reexamine
22 (B) Reconstruction. maintenance practices of highways
23 (C) Replacement designed to accommodate pedestrian
24 (D) Modification to increase carrying capacity. and bicycle travel.
25 (2) For the purposes of this section, "construction" (1)The department will reimburse
26 does not include any of the following: local jurisdictions for additional costs
27 {A) Resurfacing. incurred if a facility outside of the
28 {B) Restoration. state right-of-way is designated for
pedestrian or bicycle access as an
29 (C) Rehabilitation.
alternative to access on a highway.
30 (D) Installation of, or improvements to, any of the
31 following:
32 (i) Planting. 5 to
33 (ii) Illumination.
34 (iii) Traffic control devices.
35 (E) Maintenance.
36 (F) Incidental improvements that do not increase
37 highway carrying capacity
38 SEC. 2. Notwiths ding Section o the
39 Government Code, if the Commission on State Mandates
40 determines that this act contains costs mandated by the
96
- _ SB 1629
1 state, reimbursement to local agencies and school
2 districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Fart 7
3 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title
4 2 of the Government Code. If the statewide cost of the
5 claim for reimbursement does not exceed one million
6 dollars ($1,000,000), reimbursement shall be made from
7 the State Mandates Claims Fund.
O
96
EXHIBIT B
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 26,2000
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 12, 2000
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 27,2000
SENATE BILL No. 2017
Introduced by Senator Perata
February 25,2000
An act to add and repeal Section 65588.5 of the Government
Code, relating to local planning, and making an appropriation
therefor.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEVS DIGEST
SB 2017, as amended,Perata. Focal planning.
(1) 9wisfing
Existing lave requires each city, county, and city and county
to adopt for its jurisdiction a general plan that includes certain
mandatory elements, including a housing element. The
housing element is required to include, among other things,
an identification and analysis of existing and projected
housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified
objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for
the preservation,improvement, and development of'housing.
This bill would require, if specified conditions are met, the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to determine
on or before January 1, 2002, policy criteria based upon a
balance of jobs and housing to evaluate whether local
governments areUel-shareaf ing
, as well as participating in regional congestion reductio
_ --
c - �f ,e )
96
I
B 2017 -2-
plans.
2---
plans. It would require MTC and ABAG to develop a
monitoring and evaluation program as specified.. Prey--we»i
fie- be required and to prepare and submit a report to the
Legislature on or before January 1, 2002, that describes the
basic policies to support linkage between land use decisions
and transportation planning or funding, or both, and make
recommendations regarding the use of incentives and
disincentives to enforce the policies.
pg : This ,bill would appropriate $250,000 to the
Controller for allocation to MTC and ABAG for these
purposes, which would be contingent upon an agreement by
MTC and ABAG, as specified.
(2) The GaliferMa Gensfiftoi the state fe
s s
4449 big wee4d provi4e dmt; if the G )n State
s !
the
s
perguant to these st—oh-A—er,
The bill would appropriate $250,000 from the General Fund
to the Controller for allocation to the MTC and ABAG to
implement the provisions of the bill.
Vote: Bio 2/3. Appropriation: m yes. Fiscal committee:
yes. State-mandated local program:yea no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
1 SECTION 1. Section 65588.5 is added to the
2 Government Code,to read:
3 65588.5. (a) On or before January 1, 2002, the
4 Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the
5 Association of Bay Area Governments shall determine
6 policy criteria based upon a balance of jobs and housing
7 to evaluate whether local governments are
167
3
-3— SB 2017
1 3iiip FA nt- ag thoir lba= of housing t **.T &—r�%-i- as
9
2 s. The
3 commission and the association shall also develop a
4 monitoring and evaluation program in order to develop
5 measurable criteria related to the connection of jobs,
6 housing, and transportation in the Bay Area at
7 jurisdictional, subregional and commute shed levels.
8 The program shall do all of the following:
9 (1) Prepare studies to determine baselines of jobs and
10 housing available and needed in the Bay Area at
11 jurisdictional, subregional, and commute shed corridors.
12 (2) Establish criteria that prescribe reasonable
13 planning outcomes for housing that support the
14 connection of jobs, housing, and transportation in the Bay
15 Area.
16 (3) Create a monitoring and evaluation program to
17 track production in housing and jobs with respect to
18 measuring an appropriate jobs-housing balance in each
19 jurisdiction.
20 (b) The Metropolitan Transportation Commission and
21 the Association of Bay Area Governments shall prepare
22 and submit a report to the Legislature eft er befere
23 jemary 1, - 2; that describes the basic policies to support
24 linkage between land use decisions and transportation
25 planning or funding, or both. If the Metropolitan
26 Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay
27 Area Governments receive the funds appropriated by
28 Section 2 of the act that adds this section to the
29 Government Code, they shall prepare and submit the
30 report to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2002. The
31 report shall also make recommendations regarding the
32 use of incentives and disincentives to enforce the policies.
33 (c) This section shall remain in effect only until
34 January 1, 2002, and as of that date is repealed, unless a
35 later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1,
36 2002,deletes or extends that date.
37 SEG. 2. Netwifhstmding Seetien 17610 of the
38 Government Gede, if the—Geffh-M99iett en atMandates.
39
40 state,
9
SB 2017 —4-
1
-4—
2
4 elaim for _b at deet o ..
f a a^A _ ...x4l
5 deggrg } , }
6
7 SFC. 2. The sum of two hundred fifty thousand dollars
8 ($230,000) is hereby appropriated from the General Fund
9 to the Controller for allocation to the Metropolitan
10 Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay
11 Area Governments for the purpose of determining the
12 policy criteria, developing the program, and preparing
13 and submitting the report described in Section 1 of this
14 act. This sum shall be allocated by the Controller only if
15 the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the
16 Association of Bay Area Governments notify the
17 Controller on or before Manch 1, 2001, that they have
18 agreed to determine the policy criteria, develop the
19 program, and prepare and submit the report. If the
20 Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the
21 Association of Bay Area Governments fail to notify the
22 Controller of this agreement by that date, then the
23 appropriation shall revert to the General Fund on June
24 30, 2001, and neither the Metropolitan Transportation
25 Commission nor the Association of Bay Area
26 Governments shall be required to perform any of the
27 duties specified in Section I of this act.
d
96
EXHIBIT
106Tx CONGRESS ��• Ro 3630
2D SESSION
To amend title 23, United Mates Code, to make certain passenger rail
projects eligible for funding under the highway program, and for other
purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FEBRUARY 10, 2000
Mr. IsAmoN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
A BILL
To amend title 23, United States Code, to make certain
passenger rail projects eligible for funding under the
highway program, and for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tures of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECrnON 1. FUNDING FLEXIBILITY AND HIGH SPEED RAIL
4 CORRIDORS.
5 (a) ELIGIBILITY OF PASSENGER RAIL FOR HIGHWAY
d FUNDING.D
7 (1) NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM.D Section
8 143(b)(F) of title 23, United States Code, is amend-
9 ed by adding at the end the following:
2
1 "(Q) Acquisition, construction, reconstruc-
2 tion., and rehabilitation of, and preventative
3 maintenance for, intercity rail passenger facili-
4 ties and rolling stock.".
5 (2) SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM.P
6 Section 133(b)(2) of title 23, United States Code, is
7 amended by inserting before the period at the end
8 the following: `°, rail, or a combination of bus and
9 rail".
10 (3) CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY
11 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.D Section 149(b) of title
12 23, United States Code, is amendedD
13 (A) in paragraph (4), by striking `or" at
14 the end;
15 (B) in paragraph (5), by striking the pe-
1+6 riod at the end and inserting `; or"; and
17 (C) by adding at the end the following:
18 "(6) if the project or program will have air
19 quality benefits through acquisition, construction, re-
20 construction, and rehabilitation of, and preventative
21 maintenance for, intercity rail passenger facilities
22 and rolling stock.".
23 (b) TRANSFER OF Iii HWAY AND TRANSIT FUNDS
24 TO AMTRAK AND PUBLICLY-OWNED PASSENGER RAIL
*HR 3630 3H
3
1 LINES.D Section 104(k) of title 23, United States Code,
2 is amendedD
3 (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as para-
4 graph (4);
5 (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the fol-
6 lowing:
7 "(3) TRANSFER TO AMTRAK AND PUBLICLY-
8 OWNED PASSENGER RAIL LINEs.D Funds made
9 available under this title or chapter 53 of title 49
10 and transferred to the National Railroad Passenger
11 Corporation or to any publicly-owned intercity or in-
12 tracity passenger rail line shall be administered by
13 the Secretary in accordance with subtitle V of title
14 49, except that the provisions of this title or chapter
15 53 of title 49, as applicable, relating to the non-F'ed-
16 eral share shall apply to the transferred fiends."; and
17 (3) in paragraph (4) (as redesignated by para-
13 graph (1)), by striking ""paragraphs (1) and (2)"
19 and inserting "paragraphs (1) through (3)"
0
•tet. 9880 TH
yy
EXHIBIT D
(EXCERPTS FROM 5.1144)
t,wendar No. 425
106TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION S91144
[Report No. 106-226]
To provide increased flexibility in use of highway funding, and for other
purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
MAY 27, 1999
Mr. VOINOviCH (for himself, Mr. CHAFEE, Air. JEFFORDS, Mr. MOYNIHAN,
Mr. WARNER, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. LEAKY, Mr.
LIEBERMAN, Mr. MURKOWSla, Mr. CLELAND, Mr. ROBB, Mr. DURBIN,
MS. SNOWE, MS. COLLINS, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. BAYH, Mr. TORRICELLi,
Mr. ALLARD, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. MACK, Mr. SPECTER,
Mr. HoLLiNGs, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. REID, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs.
BOXER, Mr. ROTH, Mr. LOTT, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. REED, and Mr.
KERRY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works
JANUARY 7, 2000
Reported under authority of the order of the Senate of November 19, 1999,
by Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire, with an amendment
[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]
A BILL
To provide increased flexibility in use of highway funding,
and for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of'Representa-
2 tives of the United States ofAmerica in Congress assembled,
9
1 (B) in paragraph (5), by striking the period
2 at the end and inserting " or", and
3 (C) by adding at the end the following:
4 "(6) if the project or program will have air qual-
5 ity benefits through acquisition, construction, recon-
6 struction, and rehabilitation of, and preventative
7 maintenance for, intercity rail passenger facilities
8 and rolling stock (including passenger facilities and
9 rolling stock for transportation systems using mag-
10 netic levitation).".
11 (b) TRANSPER OF HIGHWAY FUNDS To AMTRAK AND
12 OTHER PUBLICLY-OWNED INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL
13 LINES.D Section 144(k) of title 23, United States Code, is
14 amended)
15 (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as para-
16 graph (4);
17 (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the fol-
18 lowing.
19 `Y(3) TRANSFER TO AMTRAK AND OTHER PUB-
20 LICLY-OWNED INTERCITY.'' PASSENGER RAIL LINES.,
21 Funds made available under this title and transferred
22 to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation or to
23 any other publicly-owned intercity passenger rail line
24 (including any rail line for a transportation system
25 using magnetic levitation) shall be administered by
•S 11" RS
L '/ > X
4
10
1 the Secretary in accordance with subtitle V of title 49,
2 except that the provisions of this title relating to the
3 non-Federal share shalt apply to the transferred
4 funds.!'; and
5 (3) in paragraph (4) (as redesignated by para-
6 graph (1)), by striking `paragraphs (1) and (2)" and
7 inserting 'paragraphs (1) through (3)".
8 SEC, 4,HISWRIC BRIDGES.
9 Section 144(o) of title 23, United States Code, is
10 amendedD
11 (1) in paragraph (3), by inserting '�200 percent
12 of after 'shall not exceed"; and
13 (2) in paragraph (4)D
14 (A) in the second sentence, by inserting
15 '�200 percent of after ''not to exceed"; and
16 (B) by striking the third sentence and in-
17 serting _the following: '1f a State determines that
18 the relocation of a historic bridge is a reasonable
19 alternative, the eligible reimbursable project costs
20 shall be equal to the greater of the Federal share
21 that would be available for the construction of a
22 new bicycle or pedestrian bridge or 200 percent
23 of the cost of demolition of the historic bridge.".
as It" Hs