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.

20 CHAPTER FOUR CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS This synthesis identified three subject areas in particular— technology, procedures, and standardization—that encap- sulate the major techniques and practices that metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) have adopted to streamline the TIP revision process. • Technology advancements. For the larger MPOs sur- veyed, a trend appears to be emerging that allows TIP revisions (particularly administrative modifications) to be initiated and managed through adoption in a web-based program dedicated to this purpose. Where a dedicated program was unavailable, project revision forms or templates were made available for download- ing and submission. • Procedural changes. The MPOs studied often group together Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) revisions for processing at a single, regularly scheduled set of board meetings. Similarly, an annual update of the TIP captures the revisions made during the preced- ing year. In some instances, MPOs have enacted spe- cial meetings or even absentee voting to process TIP revisions more quickly, whereas others have modified their public participation requirements to move a TIP revision forward. • Standardization. To provide the level of information nec- essary to process TIP revisions efficiently, some MPOs have developed a template that contains the project name, scheduling, annual costs, and other information. Several MPOs surveyed for this synthesis have reached agreement with their federal and state partners on project cost thresholds that distinguish between administrative modifications and full amendments. Such thresholds help those MPOs avoid more time-consuming amendment pro- cesses because all the regulatory agencies are in agreement about what constitutes a minor change that can be made in a streamlined fashion. Some MPOs have adopted procedures, with agreement from their state and federal partners, that allow them to make revisions to the TIP without having to publish a new paper version. They produce only one hard copy a year, regardless of how many revisions are made in that time. MPOs are increasingly processing and disseminating TIP revisions electronically for administrative modifica- tions as well as formal amendments. Electronic processing enables MPOs to keep the TIP current without having to reprint it after its initial release, relying instead on digital, web-based dissemination of updated TIP information. This can also be a good data management tool for the MPO to comply with key state and federal project tracking require- ments. Of course, compliance with Section 508 of the Reha- bilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794d), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 is required even with electronic dissemination. Several MPOs are providing detailed guidance to proj- ect sponsors regarding the information required to process a TIP revision. In some cases, this guidance takes the form of an electronic submittal form; in others, it is simply providing project sponsors with a clearer understanding of the infor- mation needed to efficiently process a revision and reduce the time spent getting clarification. Finally, MPOs noted that there are a number of oppor- tunities to share information on the TIP revision process at meetings and conferences targeted to MPOs, such Asso- ciation of Metropolitan Planning Organizations planning conferences and TRB sessions for MPOs. Some states have statewide organizations and MPO planning conferences that are a good forum for sharing strategies and lessons learned for making the TIP revision process more efficient. This synthesis focused specifically on the TIP revision process as conducted by MPOs. It revealed a number of gaps in the body of knowledge related to efficient TIP revision processes. Following is a list of suggested future research to fill those gaps and a brief description of what form that research might take: • The relationship of voting structures to TIP revi- sion efficiencies. Studying the presence or absence of weighted voting and how those voting schemes might impact the timeliness of TIP revisions may provide additional clarification on the ability to call special meetings to expedite fast-paced approval processes. • Conduct an analysis of MPO, along with the roles played by their respective state department of trans- portation (DOT), and federal agencies (FHWA/FTA) in managing the TIP revision procedures. State DOTs and MPOs do not manage TIPs in a vacuum. The TIP

21 revision process informs and is informed by MPO, state DOT, FHWA, and FTA processes. This synthesis indicates that these processes at the state and federal levels vary as they do at the MPO level. Truly under- standing efficient TIP management practices at the MPO level then entails understanding the correspond- ing state DOT, FHWA, and FTA processes. Research tracing the TIP management process vertically through unique MPO–state DOT–federal relationships would shed important light on efficiencies practiced at higher levels than the individual MPO. • Analysis of the perceived purpose of the TIP by MPOs and state and federal agencies, and the ways these perceptions influence how each agency manages the revision process. This synthesis suggests that different agencies intend to accomplish different things with the TIP. Varying interpretations of the purpose of the TIP— letter of the law versus spirit and intent of the law—may contribute to inefficiencies in how the TIP is managed. Additional research on these differences and their influ- ence on various approaches to TIP reviews and processes can shed light on areas for increased efficiency. • Impact of electronic media on the TIP revision pro- cess. Based on the frequency of changes and revisions in some TIP documents, the traditional view of the TIP as a primarily printed document that is infrequently changed is inaccurate. Several MPOs publish changes only on a website until the TIP is updated. This more flexible and dynamic digital medium—where TIP revisions are approved by one agency, reviewed by another, then adopted by a federal agency almost entirely through digital means with minimal delays— may imply a change in the role of the TIP for transpor- tation agencies and is an area of potentially important research. The speed of these transactions, combined with the lack of public engagement noted by several MPOs, may also have implications for how well the MPO and state and federal partners communicate their future plans, particularly to populations with restricted access to the Internet.