Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 7
7
ments. Financial uncertainty, particularly when expressed STUDY METHODOLOGY
by project cost underestimates or overestimates, can create
programming problems. If the project was initially underes- The study began with a literature review of existing pro-
timated in the TIP, then funds will frequently be moved from cesses, from which a survey process was developed. The
other projects, requiring changes to both funding levels and findings of the report draw heavily from direct contact with
scheduling elements in the TIP project descriptions. If the MPOs generated through a three-phase process. The first
project cost was initially overestimated in the TIP, then that phase consisted of a brief screening questionnaire sent to all
project will require a reduction in funding shown in the TIP, state DOTs and FHWA and FTA offices to identify candidate
at a minimum (5,6 ). MPOs for a detailed survey. The screening process identi-
fied 45 MPOs to survey. The MPO survey contained detailed
Similarly, a lack of advance awareness of congressional questions about sources of delay, satisfaction with estab-
earmarks often requires unexpected shifts in a regional allo- lished processes, and issues encountered in both amendment
cation of dollars unanticipated by the sponsors of the project and modification processes and the mitigations developed to
earmark (5,6). A report completed after a best practices scan respond to those issues. From the completed second-phase
in 2010 by AASHTO noted that volatility in TIPs and STIPs, in surveys, 10 MPOs were selected for case examples to further
particular, results in the need for changes to project costs and develop key concepts of agency relationships and individual
schedules, as well as the addition of new projects. Metropoli- experiences that may be transferable to other MPOs and state
tan plans require changes less frequently, and therefore present transportation agencies. From these efforts, the report con-
far less of a challenge. The number of amendments and admin- cludes with a state-of-the-practice overview of TIP amend-
istrative actions that MPOs and DOTs take for TIPs and STIPs ment/modification procedures and notable findings from the
varies widely. Large, complex MPOs, such as the New York 10 case examples.
Metropolitan Transportation Council, require hundreds of
actions each year, whereas smaller MPOs and states may only To identify MPOs for further study, each office of the
require a handful. MPOs vary the frequency of amendments, FHWA (n = 50), FTA (n = 10), and state DOTs (n = 50) was
from periods as brief as daily to as long as quarterly (6). sent a web-based screening questionnaire. The questionnaire
FIGURE 1 Map locating the MPOs studied.
OCR for page 8
8
asked the respondents what organization they represented, Table 1 summarizes the techniques in place at MPOs to aid
and if there were MPOs that exhibited notable character- in the processing of TIP revisions in several different areas
istics of efficiency, public involvement, innovation, or col- (procedural, technological, and standardization). The table
laboration in their TIP revision process. Respondents were summaries information gathered from survey responses and
invited to list up to five MPOs that exhibited one or more of case examples. The MPOs listed in Table 2 were selected for
these traits (refer to Appendix A for the complete text of the a second round of study.
questionnaire). All of the respondents cited at least one, and
as many as five, MPOs that exhibited some or all of these Thirty-seven of the 45 MPOs surveyed responded to the
four characteristics. The distribution of MPOs engaged questionnaire (response rate: 82%); 10 of those respondents
for further study is illustrated in Figure 1. The selection of were later contacted for additional interviews. Interviews were
participant MPOs relied heavily on the strength of recom- conducted with eight Transportation Management Associa-
mendations from the screening questionnaire, as well as geo- tions (TMAs) and two non-TMAs. Additionally, eight of the
graphic distribution, size, and air quality conformity status. ten case examples are in air quality conformity regions.
TABLE 1
TIP REVISION ACTIONS OR INNOVATIONS
Action or Innovation Innovation Area
Procedural Technology Standardization
Development of Templates for Information Input
Online Database of TIP Revisions
Online Data Entry for TIP Revisions
Online Routing of TIP Revisions
Training Videos or Workshops on TIP Revision Tools
Absentee Voting
Call for Unscheduled Board Meeting
Grouping Revisions for Next Scheduled Board Meeting
Improve Communications in Early Stages of TIP Revision
Procedural Guidance (Statewide or MPO-Specific)
Collaboration on Defining TIP Amendments and Administrative Modification
Threshold Criteria
Modifications to Public Participation Requirements
Updates of TIP on Annual Basis
() Useful for Amendment; () Useful for Administrative Modification.
TABLE 2
THE CANDIDATE SURVEY MPO EVALUATION
FTA Region and MPO Size1 AQ2 Case Study
Region 1: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut
PACTS (Portland, ME) 194,896 No
Capitol Region COG (Hartford, CT) 721,320 Yes
Central MA RPC (Worcester, MA) 518,480 No Yes
RI Statewide Planning (State of RI) 1,048,319 No
Region 2: New York and New Jersey
South Jersey TPO (Trenton, NJ) 565,601 Yes
CDTC (Albany, NY) 780,467 Yes Yes
North Jersey TPA (Newark, NJ) 6,310,989 Yes
Genesee Transportation Council (NY) 1,200,000 No
NYMTC (New York, NY) 12,068,148 Yes
Table 2 continued on p. 9
OCR for page 9
9
Table 2 continued from p. 8
FTA Region and MPO Size1 AQ2 Case Study
Region 3: Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, District of Columbia
Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission (Pittsburgh, PA) 2,656,007 Yes
Richmond MPO (VA) 811,108 Yes
WILMAPCO (Wilmington, DE) 586,216 Yes Yes
Regional Intergovernmental Council (WV) 251,662 No
Region 4: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee
West Florida Regional Planning Council (FL/AL) 392,058 Yes
Gulfport RPC (MS) 313,635 No
Knoxville MPO (TN) 476,542 Yes
Atlanta Regional Commission (GA) 3,890,582 Yes Yes
Volusia TPO (Daytona Beach, FL) 448,768 No
Region 5: Illinois, Ohio, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Michigan
CMAP (Chicago, IL) 8,150,789 Yes Yes
MORPC (Columbus, OH) 1,241,251 Yes
East-Central Wisconsin RPC (Menasha, WI) 55,365 No
Madison Area Transportation Planning Board (WI) 350,247 No
Indianapolis MPO (Indianapolis, IN) 1,299,722 Yes
Duluth MIC (Duluth, MN) 145,163 Yes Yes
Region 6: Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, and New Mexico
Santa Fe MPO (Santa Fe, NM) 92,407 No
North Central TX COG (Dallas, TX) 4,879,535 Yes Yes
ACOG (Oklahoma City, OK) 990,564 Yes
San Antonio-Bexar County MPO (TX) 1,415,906 Yes
Region 7: Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas
East-West Gateway COG (St. Louis, MO) 2,482,935 Yes
MAPA (Omaha, NE) 658,810 No
Siouxland Interstate MPC (Sioux City, IA) 113,423 No
MARC (Kansas City, MO) 1,582,372 Yes
Region 8: Colorado, Utah, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, and North Dakota
Denver Regional COG (Denver, CO) 2,394,504 Yes
Pikes Peak COG (Colorado Springs, CO) 514,171 No
Wasatch Front RPC (Salt Lake City, UT) 1,328,198 Yes Yes
Missoula MPO (Missoula, MT) 81,144 No Yes
Cache MPO (Logan, UT) 79,453 No
Region 9: Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada
Flagstaff MPO (Flagstaff, AZ) 68,030 No
Fresno COG (Fresno, CA) 799,407 Yes
Oahu MPO (Oahu, HI) 860,560 No
RTC of Southern NV (Las Vegas, NV) 1,375,765 Yes
Table 2 continued on p. 10
OCR for page 10
10
Table 2 continued from p. 9
FTA Region and MPO Size1 AQ2 Case Study
Region 10: Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Alaska
Metro (Portland, OR) 1,313,695 Yes
COMPASS (Boise, ID) 406,160 Yes Yes
Anchorage MATS (Anchorage, AK) 257,803 Yes
Puget Sound Regional Council (Seattle, WA) 3,275,847 Yes
Notes:
1Estimated size of MPO population (2000).
2Air quality conformity status as indicated on MPO website.
