2005-10 TIP UPDATE

2005-10 TIP Update

Introduction

The 2005-10 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.

Estimating Available Funds

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 most recent federal funding legislation (TEA-21) expired at the beginning of the committed period of this TIP (2003-05). Region One’s proposed CDTC allocations were, in aggregate, close to the amount determined by CDTC’s historic approach. Therefore, allocations proposed by Region One were used. For the first time since allocations were estimated by CDTC, IM and HBRR funds were not estimated for CDTC because they were programmed at a NYSDOT Region One level rather than at an MPO level. It is CDTC’s understanding that the final TIP reflects reconciliation of resource estimates for the CDTC's area with those for the balance of the eight-county NYSDOT Region One.

Available transit funds were obtained from the Federal Register (February 11, 2004). Appropriated funds for 2003-04 FFY were inflated by 4.5% per year to estimate funds for the 2005-10 FFY’s. This results in a total of about $56M for the five-year TIP programming period. This is approximately equal to the authorized amount without inflation, which is consistent with the calculation procedure for highway funds. zzz (check with ky about web page) ) (choose federalregister 6249

In parallel with estimated allocated funds, CDTC received project cost and schedule information from NYSDOT Region One. CDTC then combined the information with estimated changes to the locally administered projects. Knowing that the update process takes several months, and some of the cost and schedule information would need to change prior to the final adoption of the 2005-10 TIP, CDTC viewed the information at an aggregate level, rather than at a project level. The intention was to give CDTC a sense of how much funding would be available for new projects without taking the extra time needed to examine project level data that would change during the update. This analysis indicated that there would be NHS and CMAQ funds available, but no STP funds. HBRR funds were examined by Region One, which said that there was substantial room for programming new projects with HBRR funds.

) (choose federalregister 62498)

Changes to Existing Projects

This update includes the following in the 2005-10 TIP:

¨ All TIP amendments approved since May 2003 (the approval of the 2003-08 TIP).

¨ Existing TIP projects considered ongoing commitments or set-asides were continued at previous levels. RG37A (TMC Operating Costs) increased by about $4.3M. With RG38 (NY 5 ITS Transit Component) rolling off the TIP, this category of projects decreased funds programmed in the seven years by about $5M.

¨ Funding changes (increases and decreases) were made to some existing HBRR projects. Several HBRR projects were added, and some rolled off the program. The net change to the seven-year HBRR program was less than $0.100.

¨ Projects needing major funding changes not included above decreased in funding by about $10.5M. Major funding changes are defined as those requiring Policy Board action if they were proposed as amendments.

¨ 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 $2M in decreases to the total funding shown for these projects in the seven-year period.

¨ As in every update, major regional projects were reexamined regarding cost and scope. An additional $12M was added to these projects in the seven-year period. About half of the increase ($6.5M) is due to changes to the Albany Shaker Road Reconstruction (A275), which had already rolled off the TIP. Some of these projects are highlighted below.

· Slingerlands Bypass (A242 & A243): The funding commitment to A242 was increased by about $5M and put in the 2005-06 year. But construction funding for A243 was removed. This results in a net funding decrease of about $3.3M to these two projects, but a net increase of $5.6M in the seven-year period.

· Balltown Road (SA108 and S96): Phase two of Balltown Road (widening of Balltown Road from River Road to Aqueduct Road in Niskayuna and from Riverview Road to Glenridge Road in Clifton Park) was kept outside the five-year period. The funding for phase one (Rexford Bridge), was rescheduled for the 2009-10 federal fiscal year and funding was increased about $0.200M.

· Glenridge Road (SA109 and S120): The two-railroad bridge option was chosen during the 1999-04 update, rather than the railroad bridge consolidation option, as the reference alternative for the Glenridge Road project. The project remained in the 2007-08 federal fiscal year. Funding increased about $1.2M. To contribute to fiscal constraint in the 2003-08 TIP, the construction budget was trimmed at that time in the final draft to reflect a modified scope that addresses horizontal clearances, but will not fully address vertical clearance issues.

· I-87 Exit 3 or 4 Airport Connector (A240): The total funding for this project remained about the same and was kept in the five-year period. However, CDTC commitment now extends only to the amount of NHS funds shown (total about $30M). Any funds required beyond that, requires the acquisition of an additional fund source. Because some money was already obligated, the funding in the seven-year period declined by about ($1.8M).

· Selkirk Bypass (A290): The funding remained the same, but the project has been deferred to outside the seven-year period, to allow time for an alternative to be chosen.

¨ 100% State Dedicated Fund (SDF) projects greater than $0.500M in cost, 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.

¨ 100% Thruway and Canal Corporation funded projects greater than $0.500M in cost, 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 TIP in a step-wise fashion, the sum total of CDTC's existing commitments, including cost increases and scope changes, yielded total available funds for STP (Flex, Rural, Large Urban and Urban) as negligible; for NHS about $23M; and for CMAQ, it was about $13.5M. As mentioned above, IM and HBRR funding allocations were considered at the NYSDOT Region One level, not the MPO level, so no specific amounts were considered available for CDTC. However, NYSDOT solicited for HBRR eligible projects in coordination with CDTC for the purpose of programming significant HBRR funds for new projects in the CDTC area.

Funds Reserved for Rollovers

During the update, CDTC decided to maintain fiscal constraint over the five-year programming period of the TIP. For the first time, CDTC did not consider the committed period separate from the five-year period. Instead, CDTC considered funding and programming for the seven-year period (2003-10), which included both the five-year and the committed period. This negated the need to leave room in the five-year period for projects that wouldn’t be obligated in the committed period, and would need to roll into the five-year period, and therefore negated the need for offsets (project deferrals, reductions or deletions) to compensate for rollovers as required by NYSDOT policy. Maintaining fiscal constraint in the seven-year program increases the likelihood that at the next update (scheduled for the 2007-12 TIP) there would be significant funding for new projects.

Fiscal Balance and the 2005-10 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 was consistent with that of New York State as a whole and with federal spending on a national level. According to Table 1 of the Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP) January 2003 newsletter, from 1992 (the beginning of ISTEA) to 2001, the STP-Flex funds were overspent by 55% nationwide and by 58% statewide. STPP cites the Fiscal Information System, Highway Statistics, Federal Notices from FHWA and original analysis from the FHWA as its source. By contrast, the draft CDTC 2003-08 TIP was overprogrammed in STP-Flex by approximately 34% in the three-years and underprogrammed by 24% in the five-year period.

During the public review period of the draft 2003-08 TIP, CDTC received updated resource availability information from NYSDOT. Strong demand across the state for access to STP funds meant that CDTC could 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 reflected a strict balance of STP commitments within the three-year TIP. A modest overprogramming of the STP program remained in the fourth and fifth years. Numerous schedule delays resulted from this effort to balance the books in the final TIP.

In the 2005-10 TIP Update, CDTC continued toward a strict constraining of programming each fund source to the amount estimated to be available. Because of these efforts, for the first time in many years, the 2005-10 TIP is now fiscally constrained by fund source. It therefore, does not rely on the type of latitude from NYSDOT Region One mentioned above.

Programming New Projects

In September of 2004, 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 that qualified for HBRR, CMAQ and NHS funding, since it was apparent that enough of these funds and only these funds would be available for programming.

CDTC received applications for 23 candidate projects from the “focused” solicitation. Two of the projects (T74 and T75) and the Park & Ride lot (R262) proposed as part of NY 20 Bike/Ped Corridor Improvements, were considered separately as draw-downs on set-asides and were added to the TIP as such. Eight candidates did not pass the screening process. The other 13 were evaluated by the CDTC staff. A list of unfunded candidate projects appears in Appendix E.

The details regarding what projects were programmed are in the section “Addition of New Projects in the 2005-10 Update” on page 13.