VI.
Transportation Improvement Program
“The metropolitan
transportation planning process shall include development of a transportation
improvement program (TIP) for the metropolitan planning area by the MPO in
conjunction with the State and public transit operators.” 23 CFR '450.324(a)
ne of CDTC’s most important responsibilities is
the development of a multi-year program of transportation improvements that
implement recommendations of the planning process, particularly those in the New
Visions Plan. This program of projects is the
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
The TIP identifies the timing and funding of all highway, bridge,
transit, bicycle, and pedestrian transportation projects scheduled for
implementation over a five-year period using FHWA or FTA funding, and it also
estimates said implementation’s effect on Regional air quality. Federal regulations require that these
projects be included on the TIP in order to be eligible for federal
funding. The TIP also includes, for
informational purposes, non-federally funded projects, including 100% State
funded projects (NYSDOT and New York State Thruway Authority) in the
region. The CDTC TIP for 2003-2008 lists
$543 million in Federal and matched transportation projects.
There are certain federal requirements of the TIP
document:
- Covers at
least three years
- Updated at least
every two years
- Consistent
with approved Transportation Plan
- Conforms to
air quality requirements
- Identifies
each project
- Financially
constrained by year; each project has an estimate of total costs and the
amount of federal funds, state, and/or local matching funds
- Identifies
the responsible party for project implementation
- Approved by
MPO and Governor
- Modifications
during the year are subject to appropriate project selection procedures
Fortunately, transportation investment has broad support in
the Capital District area. It has been a
non-partisan issue with bi-partisan support, and there are usually no
significant disagreements over project selections. However, we are troubled over the recent
changes in types of projects being funded with Federal funds (see page
45).
TIP Investment
Principles
|
Figure
12: |
CDTC’s choice of what projects to place on the TIP is
guided by several exceptional policy decisions that were agreed upon in the New Visions plan. First, transportation investment is to
be based on function and need, not upon facility ownership. Under this policy, all member agencies agreed
to put all funds (NHS, CMAQ, STP) on the table; the best projects are selected
according to CDTC investment strategy, and then money is assigned. This is noticeably different than how most MPOs approach the TIP or RTP: normally, Federal fund type
determines project selection (e.g., NYSDOT owned facilities compete against
themselves for NHS funding, and the locally owned facilities compete against
each other for STP funding).
The
Plan lays out a performance based management strategy (e.g., painting bridges
before they corrode, building more durable pavements, matching design treatment
to road function rather than ownership or funding category). CDTC also uses
both “core” performance measures relating to aggregate system performance
(e.g., extent of congestion) and “supplemental” performance measures relating
to specific elements of the system (e.g., percentage of Interstate highway
pavement in poor physical condition). CDTC’s performance measures have been recognized as a
prototype for improved processes elsewhere and have been the subject of several
case studies.
Secondly, system preservation
is defined in terms of maintaining existing facilities at the current
conditions. The Plan drew a
figurative 1996 “line in the sand” regarding the condition and benefits of the
transportation system. CDTC required the
Plan to maintain or improve the overall transportation service quality from
1996 conditions and enhance the quality of life in the region; it was to reduce
per-capita resource requirements related to provision, operation, use and
mitigation of the impacts of the transportation system from 1996 per-capita
costs - especially in reducing the total costs of accidents (crashes). Capacity and safety improvements and design
upgrades carried out in conjunction with facility renewal are considered
separately in the plan as discretionary improvements, similar to
stand-alone capacity, safety, or bike/pedestrian actions.
Thirdly,
CDTC will maintain an informed balance in transportation investments. This was a shift from heavy emphasis on
routine pavement, bridge and bus renewal and congestion mitigation to a
carefully-structured balance among these traditional efforts and actions
focused on travel safety, economic development and community enhancement,
arterial management, bike and pedestrian accommodation, transit redesign and similar
subjects. The plan establishes a policy
that, after system preservation needs are met, comparable progress is to
be pursued across-the-board in 17 budget categories. If necessary, CDTC will steer funds to
certain categories to ensure a balanced investment program in the TIP. This same approach is taken with transit,
where system preservation needs are defined in terms of maintaining the
existing fleet and other equipment/facilities at current size and condition. Upgrades and expansions are treated as
improvements. Funding priority is
assigned to preservation, and transit improvements are advanced along with
other desired improvements as funding permits.
Development Process for the 2003-2008 TIP
Putting the TIP together is a
little science and a little art. The CDTC has developed a very sensible process
for soliciting, evaluating and subsequently placing highway projects into the
TIP. Project selection for dedicated
transit funds (FTA Sections 5307, 5309, 5310, and 5311) are considered
separately.
Solicitation for
Candidate Projects
Nine months prior to
the 2003/08 TIP approval by the Policy Board, CDTC sent letters of notification
to the chief elected officials throughout the Capital District, informing them
of the commencement of the process to develop a new TIP. Other agencies in the Capital District that
are capable of sponsoring transportation projects (e.g., New York Thruway
Authority, the Canal Corporation, private railroads, etc.) also received notification
letters. Applications are submitted as
Project Justification Packages (CDTC’s template for
providing project information). In
response to the 2003 solicitation, CDTC received applications for 55 candidate
projects.
Screening
After
receiving the Project Justification Packages, CDTC employs a screening process
to determine whether or not certain established requirements for inclusion in
the TIP are met. As described in the TIP[i], the
screening criteria are:
· Consistency with TEA-21’s planning factors, CDTC’s plans (e.g., New
Visions, Metropolitan Congestion
Management System, etc.), and local land use plans
· Ability to provide local matching funds
· Well defined project scope and timing
· Meeting an identified need
· Federal-aid eligibility
Of the 55 applications received for
consideration, 7 failed the initial screening and 48 continued on to the Merit
Evaluation stage.
Merit
Evaluation
At this stage, the merits of every project are
evaluated both quantitatively and qualitatively, with the information
summarized on a one-page Project Fact Sheet (see Appendix E).
The quantitative information reflects financial
benefits of the project described as benefit/cost ratios ($/year) in the
categories of safety (accident reductions), travel time[ii],
energy/user costs, life cycle value[iii], and
“other benefits”[iv]. The sum of these five categories divided by
the annualized total benefit/cost of the project is the project’s total
benefit/cost ratio.
The substantial portion of the space on the
Project Fact Sheet is set aside for reporting a project’s additional impacts
(pro and con). This information, mostly
supplied by the project sponsor, describes how the project will contribute to
advancing the goals and implementing the strategies identified in New Visions. Some of these impacts can be estimated (e.g.,
reductions in VOC emission, reduction in daily excess person hours of delay)
and some only described (compatibility with local land use plans, contribution
to economic development, benefits to bicycling, etc.)
Financial Plan and
Fiscal Constraint
Federal regulations require that the TIP
include a financial plan and that it be fiscally constrained by year. The financial plan is to be developed by the
MPO in cooperation with the State and transit operator.[v]
The TIP’s development process is coordinated with the
development of the NYSDOT Region One program of projects. The total Regional program of projects is a
compilation of the programs in the urban and rural parts of the Region. Region 1 covers two MPOs
(
The extent of the openness of CDTC's TIP development process is unique in
Relationship to
Transportation Plan
As noted previously, CDTC’s TIP is closely aligned to the goals and objectives
of the New Visions Plan. The
following table illustrates how well the 2003/2008 TIP fits with the investment
strategies enumerated in the New Visions 2021 Plan’s Full Implementation
Budget (including all public source funds).
CDTC uses the plan's
principles and strategies to guide the screening of TIP candidates. Furthermore, the seventeen budget categories
in the Plan play a central role in prioritizing candidate projects for funding.
| Table 2: Comparison of 2003-2008 TIP with Plan Goals | ||
|
|
New
Visions Plan |
2003/2008 TIP |
|
Highway Operations |
35% |
39% |
|
Transit Capital & Service |
11% |
11% |
|
Pavement & Bridge. |
37% |
29% |
|
Other (below) |
17% |
21% |
|
۰ Intermodal
|
8% |
11% |
|
۰ Technology (ITS) |
3% |
1% |
|
۰ Congestion Relief |
2% |
4% |
|
۰ Community/Economic Development |
2% |
2% |
|
۰ Supplemental Actions
(stand alone Goods Movement, Bike & Ped,
Access Management, and Safety projects not included in other projects) |
2% |
1% |
Complications in
2003-2008 TIP Development
The development of the 2003-2008 TIP saw some last minute complications in what is normally a very smooth process. These complications involved NYSDOT’s revision of the amount of funds available and a NYSDOT request to limit the TIP to a three-year maintenance document.
In February/March 2003, NYSDOT wrote to all New York MPOs requesting that the upcoming TIPs be limited three-year documents rather than the normal five-year TIPs. NYSDOT cited the uncertainties in the Federal reauthorization levels[vii], the reduction in State dedicated funding, and new emerging issues (e.g., transportation security). It requested that the TIPs be limited to updating the existing TIPs to reflect changes in schedules, costs and scopes in projects already committed, refraining from any new commitments.
Most of the MPOs agreed, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, to NYSDOT’s request for a limited three-year TIP. CDTC was one of the few that decided otherwise. CDTC did appreciate that estimates of future Federal funding were speculative, and that State and local budgets were in flux. However, project solicitations had already gone out, the first time in six years. CDTC has made a significant investment in community support over the years, and they were mindful that another period without solicitation would almost certainly undermine that support. Therefore, CDTC decided to pursue the traditional five-year TIP, while acknowledging the cited uncertainties.
Of the 48 candidate projects that passed to the
Merit Evaluation stage, 34 were included in the 2003/08 TIP. But,
fiscal problems arose after the release of the draft TIP. As stated previously, the draft TIP had been
developed using NYSDOT’s fund source latitude, albeit
to a lesser extent than in the past.
During the public review period on the draft TIP, however, NYSDOT
notified CDTC that its previous estimate of available revenue had to be
revised. The strong demand across the
State for access to STP funds meant that the previous shifting of funds by
NYSDOT was not possible this year.
Consequently, the final 2003/08 TIP reflects a strict balance of STP
commitments within the first three years, with a modest over-programming in
years four and five.
In an attempt to address both the State’s request and its own project development considerations, CDTC did something unique. Although it had developed a five-year TIP, CDTC’s TIP approval resolution only approved forwarding the first three years of the TIP to NYSDOT for inclusion in the STIP.[viii] Thus, CDTC approved both a three-year and a five-year version of the TIP. Since the fourth and fifth years of a TIP are informational in any case, and the STIP only includes the first three years, this resolution was a semantic – although important – concession to NYSDOT’s wishes. It did not go against federal regulations, as the Federal agencies made a positive air quality determination on the 2003-2008 version. It was an awkward situation, but it worked out amicably.
During the certification review, Mr. Poorman said that he is anticipating some form of normal TIP process next time.
Amendments and Project Selection
Project selection is a process for advancing projects to implementation from the approved TIP, either in the first year as an “agreed to” list or in later years as a means of moving projects from year to year. Selection is essentially a joint activity involving the State, MPO and the transit operator, since all agencies are affected by the actions of one another. Language was incorporated into the implementing regulations (23 CFR 450: Statewide Planning; Metropolitan Planning) allowing for the simplified movement of projects in the second or third year of the TIP to the first year subject to procedures agreed to by the cooperating parties. CDTC adopted “Project Selection from an approved TIP” in 1994, supplemented by a revised set of TIP amendment procedures in conjunction with the release of CDTC’s Public Participation Procedures in December 1994. We note that CDTC has established and continually refines a set of guidelines for TIP amendments, with scope, cost and percentage cost thresholds to ensure the appropriate level of review and approval.
Future Direction of Investment
Strategies?
The State’s budget predicament has added significant fiscal complications to State agency capital programs. Within CDTC, this initially affects both NYSDOT and the Thruway capital budgets, but ultimately, it affects the entire Capital District. It is a situation that is not unique to CDTC – it is affecting all MPOs statewide. We do have some uneasiness over the types of projects now being federally funded.
In an attempt to keep their capital programs whole and address pressing State infrastructure needs, NYSDOT Regions have recently submitted TIP amendments to shifted some 100% State funded projects to federal funds (usually STP). Most of the projects are for the traditional bread and butter type activity – routine maintenance projects such as joint repair, minor overlays, and so on. The Thruway is doing the same, often using STP enhancement funds (e.g., Canal projects). Since the approved TIPs are fiscally constrained, the projects are often offered as advanced construction (AC) projects. Advanced construction is a cash management tool supported by FHWA that permits a State to begin a project (either State or local project) even if the State does not currently have sufficient Federal-aid obligation authority to cover the Federal share of project costs.[ix]
There is nothing wrong with using AC provisions on eligible projects. Our uneasiness over the recent project actions relates to the potential negative impacts on two traditional programming concepts:
TIP Amendment process: Because of the before mentioned State capital revenue shortfall, NYSDOT proposed amendments to the approved 2003-2008 TIP that would change some 100% State funded to federally-funded projects. When 100% State or local projects are first put on the TIP, there is no competition per se, as these projects are primarily for informational purposes. When amendments are subsequently proposed by any member to switch from 100% non-federal to federally-funded, the MPO is essentially being asked to direct federal funds to certain projects without any evaluation of relative priority. Since these discussions are out of cycle of TIP, a project’s merits are not weighed against all candidates for the funds. This appears to be a retreat of a couple of generations in financial management of the TIP because the MPO is not deciding between alternate possibilities/projects.
Types of Projects being funded: This development has the potential to change the focus of long range planning. Traditionally, federal funds are directed toward strategic projects, not routine maintenance. The erosion of State funded capital investment in routine maintenance activities is a significant change from past practice. MPOs normally reject such projects during the merit evaluation stage of TIP development. Since CDTC has been jurisdictionally blind when it comes to project selections, how can CDTC tell the other members that they cannot use federal funds on routine maintenance projects? Furthermore, if this situation persists, the MPO may not have sufficient federal funding for even a modest “reach” of its long-range plan.
Hopefully, the situation is a short term one. With higher level of federal funding in new legislation, the situation should be somewhat ameliorated. We don’t know about long term 100% State funding, which apparently will be fairly flat in the near term.
Recommendation:
· CDTC should evaluate what impact the continued use of federal funding on routine infrastructure projects will have on the build out of the RTP.
· CDTC should revisit the issue of how to evaluate TIP amendments that switch 100% non-federal projects to federally funded projects.