The 2003-08 TIP update was a three-step programming exercise. The first step was to estimate available resources. The second step was to examine and endorse existing projects for which there were changes in cost or scope from previous commitments. The third step was to consider new project additions from a broadly solicited candidate pool.
Available highway resources were estimated in cooperation with NYSDOT Region One and, to a lesser extent, with AGFTC. This was made more complicated by the fact that the federal funding legislation (TEA-21) was due to expire at the end of the committed period (2001-03). Therefore, the funding for Region One for each year of the five-year period was assumed to be the same as that of the final year of the legislation. Region One funds were then distributed between CDTC, AGFTC and the rural area. During the previous update, funding distributions were approved for the years 2001-06. Since these distributions were already established and in use, the new funding distributions (those determined in this update) were applied only to the 2006-07 and 2007-08 federal fiscal years. A total of approximately $424M in federal-aid highway resources was expected to be available to the CDTC metropolitan area during the TIP period. This total does not include federal Demonstration funds. The final TIP reflects reconciliation of CDTC's resource estimates with those for the balance of the eight-county NYSDOT Region 1 and is somewhat different from the initial expectations.
Available authorized
transit funds were obtained from the Federal Register (
CDTC acknowledges
that five-year funding estimates are extremely rough; however, the lack of a
serious solicitation and evaluation of projects for the past six years was
strong motivation to pursue a thorough update of the TIP during this update. CDTC had consciously deferred a full update
in 2001, preferring to reserve funds for a full solicitation and commitment to
the "next generation" of projects in 2003.
This update includes the following in the 2003-08 TIP:
¨
All
TIP amendments approved since May 2001 (the approval of the 2001-06 TIP).
¨ Existing TIP projects considered ongoing commitments or set-asides were continued at previous levels. This increased funds programmed in the five years by about $2.5M.
¨ Funding increases were made to HBRR projects (including A416 moving into the five-year period from the post period) totaling about $28M. Since many of these projects had funding in the committed period, the total five-year funding for these projects did not change.
¨ About $23M was added to projects needing major funding changes not included above. Major funding changes are defined as those requiring Policy Board action if they were proposed as amendments. These increases resulted in an increase of $14M to the five-year period.
¨ A large number of “routine” project revisions reflecting project schedule adjustments and minor funding revisions. Minor revisions are those defined as requiring Planning Committee action or less if they were amendment proposals. These totaled about $9M in increases to the total funding shown for these projects, but since many of these projects had funding in the committed period, the five-year program actually decreased by $64M due to these projects.
¨
As
in every update, major regional projects were reexamined regarding cost and
scope. An additional $9M was added to
these projects. Because some of these
projects have funding in the committed column, the changes net a decrease to
the five-year programming period of about $8M.
Some of these projects are highlighted below.
· Slingerlands Bypass (A242 & A243): In the public-review draft, the cost and schedule remained about the same, except that construction for A242 was delayed to 2005-06. To contribute to fiscal constraint, the final draft shows A243 in the post-2008 column, reflecting the extension of the bypass in 2005-06 and widening the entire corridor to four lanes as a later project.
·
·
· Exit 3 or 4 Airport Connector (A240): The total funding for this project was remained about the same and was kept in the five-year period.
¨ All 100% State Dedicated Fund (SDF) projects are included as submitted by NYSDOT. These projects are not funded with federal-aid. Therefore, they show on the TIP for information only and are not subject to CDTC project evaluations.
¨
All
100% Thruway and Canal Corporation funded projects are included as submitted by
the Thruway Authority. These projects are not funded with federal-aid. Therefore, they show on the TIP for
information only and are not subject to CDTC project evaluations.
As CDTC developed the draft TIP in a step-wise fashion, the sum total of CDTC's existing commitments, including cost increases and scope changes, as outlined above is $323M in matched federal-aid from Federal Highway Administration fund sources. Thus, with $424M in available funds, this left about $100M available for programming new projects.
During the update, CDTC decided to maintain fiscal constraint over the five-year programming period of the TIP. As in the 2001-06 update, this included reserving funds to absorb projects from the committed period (2001-03), which aren’t obligated by the end of that period, and automatically enter into or roll over into the first year of the TIP (2003-04). This was in response to recent NYSDOT policy to require offsets (project deferrals, reductions or deletions) to compensate for rollovers. Maintaining fiscal constraint in the five-year program increases the likelihood that at the next update (scheduled for the 2005-10 TIP) there would be significant funding for new projects. As stated above, this was first done in the 2001-06 update. The express purpose at that time was to enable programming in the 2003-08 update. Reserving funds in this manner contributed to the programming effort in this update. Continuing the practice, CDTC reserved $20M for the reserve in this update. After programming new projects began, schedules for some existing projects changed, consuming this reserve before the TIP was adopted. After the draft TIP was released for public review, CDTC was notified of funding scarcity that would add more rollovers. The final draft reflects all of the rollovers and accommodates their budgets within the three-year portion of the TIP. Accommodating these unanticipated rollovers required CDTC to defer many other projects from schedules shown in the draft TIP.
CDTC's adopted 1997-02 TIP, incorporated into the 1997-00 State Transportation Improvement Program, included a conscious over-programming of STP fund sources (STP Urban and STP Flex were overprogrammed over the five years by about $47M) balanced by a conscious under-programming of NHS and other federal highway fund sources. This reflected the outcome of the open, collaborative state-local planning and programming process and selection of the most important projects in the region. CDTC and NYSDOT Region One were able to advance this program because of the wide latitude granted to NYSDOT by federal law (in transferring funds from one source to another) and because of the wide latitude granted to NYSDOT in CDTC's adopted "project selection" guidelines (in shifting individual projects from one fund source to another).
The draft 2003-08 TIP continued to require the use of fund source latitude,
but to a lesser degree than in the past.
CDTC’s practice in this regard is consistent
with that of
During the public review period of the draft TIP, CDTC received updated resource availability information from NYSDOT. Strong demand across the state for access to STP funds means that CDTC can no longer rely on NYSDOT to transfer or shift funds to cover any overprogramming of STP sources. As a result, the final draft of the 2003-08 TIP reflects a strict balance of STP commitments within the three-year TIP; a modest over-programming of the STP program remains in the fourth and fifth years. Numerous schedule delays resulted from this effort to balance the books in the final TIP.
In September of 2002, a letter was sent to every jurisdiction's chief elected official, notifying them of the initiation of TIP development. Similar letters went to other agencies that are eligible to sponsor federal-aid transportation projects, such as NYSDOT, the Thruway Authority, the Canal Corporation, private railroads, and other state agencies. These letters were intended to notify participants that CDTC was in the process of the TIP update and that CDTC was soliciting for candidate projects, even though available funding (if any) was not yet known.
CDTC received applications for 55 candidate projects. Seven did not pass the screening process. The other 48 were evaluated by the CDTC staff. A list of unfunded candidate projects is in Appendix E.
The details regarding what projects were programmed are in the section “Addition of New Projects in the 2003-08 Update” on page 13.