Transportation Improvement Program Revision Process (2011)

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.

11 CHAPTER TWO STATE OF THE PRACTICE IN TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVISION PROCEDURES 120 days of funding award. The 2005–2008 period represents a more typical period for analysis of TIP modifications.   FIGURE 2 TIP changes during two time periods. Thirty-six percent of the responding MPOs indicated that they had more than 50 changes to the TIP during the most recent 2-year period. Forty-four percent said that they had more than 50 changes to the TIP during the 4-year period. Although it is to be expected that more changes would occur over a 4-year than a 2-year period, many of the MPOs surveyed—particularly those that processed a rela- tively small number of changes to begin with—indicated instead that they processed fewer changes in the 4-year period, possibly because the most recent 2-year period included the ARRA adjustments. Responses to questions about what process elements were a part of the adoption and processing of TIP amendments and modifications, and for how many weeks the particular process element typically required, are shown in Figures 3 and 4, respectively. FIGURE 3 Elements of TIP amendments. The survey of 45 MPOs asked recipients to describe the TIP revision process issues that they were encountering, as well as the strategies employed to address those issues (refer to Appendix A for details on survey questions). The survey used the following definitions: • Administrative Modification of the Transportation Improvement Program: A minor revision to a long- range statewide or metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, or STIP that includes minor changes to project/ project phase costs, minor changes to funding sources of previously included projects, and minor changes to project/project phase initiation dates. It does not require public review and comment, redemonstration of fiscal constraint, or a conformity determination (in nonattainment and maintenance areas). • Amendment of the Transportation Improvement Program: A revision to a long-range statewide or metropolitan transportation plan, TIP, or STIP that involves a major change to a project, including the addi- tion or deletion of a project or a major change in project cost, project/project phase initiation dates, or a major change in design concept or design scope (e.g., chang- ing project termini or the number of through traffic lanes). Changes to projects that are included only for illustrative purposes do not require an amendment. It requires public review and comment, redemonstration of fiscal constraint, or a conformity determination (for metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs involving “nonexempt” projects in nonattainment and mainte- nance areas). In the context of a long-range statewide transportation plan, it is approved by the state in accor- dance with its public involvement process. The first content-related question in the questionnaire dealt with the number of TIP amendments and administra- tive modifications conducted over two time periods. Figure 2 illustrates the number of TIP amendments and modifications made during the ARRA period (2008–2009), and a 4-year period leading up to and slightly overlapping with the nearly 2-year ARRA period (2005–2008). The survey intentionally singled out the ARRA period as it represented an extenuating circumstance: the need to quickly program federal funds and update TIPs so that projects could move to construction with

12 a source of delay in some open-ended comment opportuni- ties on the survey, compared with other potential sources of delay in this question, the issue of “Our agency’s public participation plan or process requires extensive public input on TIP administrative modifications” got the least support of any of the issues specified in this question. When the case study respondents discussed this issue, the suggested rationale was that many of the agencies studied conducted minimal or no public engagement for TIP administrative modifications. Figure 6 indicates the survey results to the question “What is the degree of satisfaction with the overall TIP amendment/administrative modification procedure as it is practiced currently?” Nearly the same percentage of respondents (46%) indi- cated that they were “Satisfied” with the current TIP change process used by their MPO as the percentage (43%) of MPOs that indicated that their satisfaction with the current process “Varies or [is] Uncertain.” Only small percentages of MPOs were “Unsatisfied” (8%) or “Very Satisfied” (3%, or one respondent). Additional research was also conducted for MPOs that processed a higher volume (more than 50) of TIP amend- ments compared with MPOs that processed a lower volume (fewer than 50) between January 1, 2008, and December 30, 2010. Note that the specific period here is simply to desig- nate responses as being high-volume or low-volume in terms of the number of TIP revisions; the actual length of time required for TIP revisions (shown in Figure 7) does not nec- essarily refer to how TIP revisions were processed during this specific period. FIGURE 4 Elements of TIP administrative modifications. Note that each of the process elements common to both amendments and administrative modifications, on average, required as much or more time for amendments in terms of schedule duration. One finding from this study is that TIP administrative modifications are being handled almost entirely internally, with minimal review of the MPO techni- cal, policy, or other boards. Figure 5 shows the survey responses to a question on how specified issues impacted the timely and effective process- ing of TIP amendments or administrative modifications. As with previous questions, “1” indicates the least impact and “5” indicates the greatest impact. By a substantial margin, the issue specified as “The American Recovery and Rein- vestment Act (ARRA or “stimulus bill”) has placed addi- tional pressures or requirements on our TIP amendment/ administrative modification processes” generated the most responses that indicated the greatest impact. Conversations conducted during the development of the case examples sug- gest that this impact goes beyond simple delays to schedul- ing and carries over into additional pressures on the MPO staff to “drop everything” and process sudden amendments and modifications. Other issues cited as particularly impactful include “Get- ting internal stakeholders (e.g., member agencies and gov- ernments) involved” and “Getting external stakeholders (e.g., resource agencies, affected public, state and federal transportation agencies) involved.” Again, this result was validated by several MPO representatives during the devel- opment of the case examples. Although the case example participants did note the 10- to 30-day public review and comment requirements as being

13 The four TIP amendment process elements shown in Fig- ure 7 exhibited the greatest degree of differentiation among the high-volume TIP amendment MPOs and the remain- ing MPOs in the survey. Staff reviews before board meet- ings and technical committee reviews took less time for the lower-volume MPOs, whereas public comment periods and FHWA review and approval took less time for the higher- volume MPOs. For both the low-volume and high-volume amendment processing MPOs, public comment typically takes 2 to 6 weeks. This is not surprising given that adopted public par- ticipation plans with required minimum review times govern the time spent on public review. Perhaps of more significance FIGURE 5 Issues affecting timely and effective TIP changes. a. The definition or interpretation of the term “administrative modification” is too narrow. b. Getting internal stakeholders (e.g., member agencies and governments) involved. c. Getting external stakeholders (e.g., resource agencies; affected public, state, and federal transportation agencies) involved. d. Our agency’s public participation plan or process requires extensive public input on TIP administrative modifications. e. Our agency’s public participation plan or process requires extensive public input on TIP amendments. f. Redemonstration of fiscal constraint (for TIP amendments) is time-consuming and problematic for our agency. g. The definition or interpretation of “administrative modification” and/or “amendment” is confusing or poorly understood by our MPO officials, state DOT, or other partners. h. Major revisions (TIP amendments) are often contentious to one or more stakeholder groups that “watchdog” the MPO. i. An unclear understanding of the roles and responsibilities between our MPO and the state DOT causes delays to the TIP amendment or administrative modification process. j. Conflicts between the requirements for TIP amendments/administrative modifications and other regulatory or statutory requirements creates issues with the effective and timely processing of TIP amendments/ administrative modifications. k. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has placed additional pressures or requirements on our TIP amendment/administrative modification processes. l. Occasional personality conflicts not related to other process issues between the MPO and state or federal agencies create various problems with processing TIP amendments or administrative modifications. FIGURE 6 Satisfaction with the overall TIP amendment/ administrative modification process.

14  FIGURE 7 Length of time for TIP amendments of high-volume/low-volume MPOs.  FIGURE 8 Length of time for TIP administrative modifications of high-volume/low-volume MPOs. is that regardless of the volume of amendments, FHWA turns around the majority of reviews and approvals within 6 weeks. Bigger differences lie between high-volume and low- volume MPOs when looking at pre-board review. The vast majority of reviews at MPOs conducting lower volumes of TIP amendments occur in less than 2 weeks, whereas at those with high volumes of amendments the reviews are as likely to be completed in less than 2 weeks as they are to be completed within 2 to 6 weeks. In both cases, it is unlikely to take more than 6 weeks. Technical committee review is more likely to take 2 to 6 weeks to complete at MPOs processing low volumes of amendments, whereas at those processing high volumes, technical review is much more likely to be completed in less than 2 weeks. Again, findings indicate that it is unusual for this process to take more than 6 weeks regardless of the number of amendments being processed. When the same assessment is done for TIP administrative modifications, the results are somewhat different, as shown in Figure 8. Here, the lower-volume MPOs tended to take longer than the high-volume MPOs to receive state DOT and FHWA approval, as well as take a longer time overall to process the administrative modification. If the assumption is made that the higher-volume MPOs have more motivation to streamline their revision processes, then these results are intuitively cor- rect and may further suggest that some of the streamlining processes described in this report have a net positive effect.