National Academies Press: OpenBook

Transportation Improvement Program Revision Process (2011)

Chapter: CHAPTER ONE Introduction

« Previous: Summary
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER ONE Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Transportation Improvement Program Revision Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14557.
×
Page 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER ONE Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Transportation Improvement Program Revision Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14557.
×
Page 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER ONE Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Transportation Improvement Program Revision Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14557.
×
Page 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER ONE Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Transportation Improvement Program Revision Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14557.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER ONE Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Transportation Improvement Program Revision Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14557.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER ONE Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Transportation Improvement Program Revision Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14557.
×
Page 12

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.

5 53 Title 49 U.S.C., as well as projects that are regionally sig- nificant or require federal action. The TIP is updated at least every 4 years, and covers a 4-year period of transportation investments. The projects listed in the TIP are chosen based on a set of criteria established by the MPO; have been vetted through a public participation process; are financially con- strained; and have been coordinated with the state depart- ment of transportation (DOT) to ensure consistency with the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), as well as local transit operators, land use entities, and environ- mental resource agencies. The TIP is then approved by the MPO governing board, which is composed of elected offi- cials from different jurisdictions and transportation opera- tors throughout the planning region. After that, the TIP is approved by the state governor and then is directly incorpo- rated, without change, into the STIP. The STIP requires joint approval from the FHWA and FTA (1). Projects, priorities, or funding levels may change within this 4-year timeframe. For example, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) provided more than $26 billion in new money for transportation projects. These projects typically had to be amended into the MPO TIP and the STIP before they could proceed. Once the TIP is adopted and incorporated into the STIP, it takes specific actions to revise both the TIP and the STIP, and federal approval of those actions is needed to complete the process. There are two basic ways to revise a TIP once it has been adopted. The first is referred to as an administrative modification (also called an adjustment, revision, correction, or administrative amendment). An administrative modifica- tion is a minor change to a TIP project, such as to its phase costs, funding sources, or phase initiation dates. This adjust- ment is usually the quickest means of changing a TIP. The second way is through a formal amendment, which involves a major change to the TIP such as addition or deletion of a project, a major change in the project cost or initiation dates, or a major change in the design concept or design scope. Amendments require a public review and comment period, a redemonstration of fiscal constraint, and potentially an air quality conformity determination (if in a maintenance or non- attainment area) for the proposed change to be considered. Outside of the general definitions given in federal regula- tions (Title 23 U.S.C. 450.104), there is little detailed guid- CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION This chapter provides background information on this syn- thesis topic, the purpose of the synthesis, and the methodol- ogy used to conduct the study. BACKGROUND Under the current United States Code (Title 23 U.S.C. Part 450), a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) is the state- and federally designated entity responsible for over- seeing regional transportation planning for a metropolitan planning area with a minimum urbanized area population of 50,000 people, as enumerated by the Bureau of the Census. MPOs range in size from places such as Ames, Iowa, with 51,000 people, to Los Angeles, California, which has more than 16 million people in its planning region. Regardless of size or complexity, all MPOs have the same basic transporta- tion planning requirements. All MPOs need to comply with federal requirements concerning the metropolitan transpor- tation planning process. This includes completing the four following major work products on a cyclical basis: • A long-range (20-year) metropolitan transportation plan (MTP) or long-range transportation plan (LRTP); • A short-range (4-year) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); • A statement of planning priorities and activities (Unified Planning Work Program); and • A public participation plan that frequently includes language on how TIP revisions are to be coordinated with process stakeholders and the general public. Additional responsibilities are assigned to MPOs with populations of more than 200,000 or those in an area des- ignated as not conforming to federal air quality standards. These additional responsibilities include external federal certification reviews, air quality conformity analyses and reporting, direct programming authority of some federal funds, and the creation of a congestion management process to identify sources of congestion and mitigation options. This report does not delve into the various ways in which a TIP is developed but instead explores how revisions are made to an adopted TIP. The TIP is a programming document that lists all trans- portation projects funded under Title 23 U.S.C. and Chapter

6 [e.g., National Association of Regional Councils (NARC) and the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organiza- tions (AMPO)], and federal transportation agencies; and internal documentation developed by the MPOs and state DOTs about their own processes. The external information is relatively sparse regarding specific language, guidance, or analysis on TIP revision processes; therefore, much of the literature review is derived from conference proceedings, not from peer-reviewed sources. Also providing insight into actual process elements and innovations are the state- and MPO-specific guidance documents prepared to assist MPOs in achieving a level of consistency and uniformity in TIP revision procedures, and conference proceedings specific to professional meetings on this subject. These guidance docu- ments are summarized individually and linked to online (Internet-based) documentation, as available, in Appendix C. The literature review identified the themes and issues confronting MPOs in programming matters, including major influences on and motivating factors for TIP revisions. MPOs have encountered a range of procedural challenges implementing federal provisions when those provisions directly impact TIP programming and revisions. Compli- cating TIP procedures has been the historical relationship between the state DOT and the congressionally mandated role of the MPO, which has been strengthening with each federal transportation reauthorization bill since the early 1970s (2). Even before ARRA (which set deadlines for programming and hence for TIP revisions) and before the economic recessionary effects being felt at the time of this writing, some transportation agencies were not entirely sat- isfied with the amount of time required to handle the many programming issues associated with their capital improve- ment programs. Some state DOTs and MPOs were in a better position to deal with fast-moving projects and project issues, as they already had programs or experiences dealing with those types of projects. Some state DOTs have cited a special revenue fund to deal with emergencies, public-private part- nerships, or other nontypical project categories as a need or as an existing opportunity (3). Also, some MPOs have noted the need for a different set of planning tools to address fis- cal constraint requirements for those projects comprising the 20-year, fiscally constrained transportation plan, of which the projects in the transportation improvement program are a subset (4, p. 10). An example of the role the state DOT can play in improv- ing consistency and quality of MPO products (and hence in reducing the potential for conflict within the TIP pro- gramming process) is when the state DOT takes an active role in determining programmable funds for fiscal con- straint. California, for example, produces a Fund Estimate, a 5-year annual projection of available state and federal funds for transportation projects updated every two years. However, changing project cost estimates also trigger the need for many TIP administrative modifications or amend- ance on TIP amendment and modification procedures. As a result MPOs have developed diverse processes for TIP revisions. Over the past 20 years, state DOTs and MPO(s) within each state have worked out the definitions of “modi- fications” and “amendments” and established internal pro- cedures for adopting them. Sometimes this diversity has resulted in approaches that streamline the general process so that projects can move forward in a timely fashion while still complying with all regional, state, and federal require- ments. Cooperative relationships among state DOTs, MPOs, FHWA, and FTA have fostered numerous innovative prac- tices that make the TIP management process more efficient. PURPOSE OF SYNTHESIS Although many MPOs have developed useful guidance or procedures on how to handle TIP amendments and modifica- tions in a cooperative manner, there is not a one-size-fits-all approach. This synthesis examines the different approaches and identifies efficiencies in the revision process that can be transferred from one MPO to another. The information gathered in this synthesis considers the following issues: • Strengths and weaknesses of existing procedures, as perceived by MPOs, and how the former work and the latter are being addressed; • How TIP revisions (administrative modifications and amendments) are initiated, reviewed, and approved, and the inclusion of traditional and nontraditional part- ners in the process; • Average time from the initiation of a TIP revision to approval; • Sources and magnitudes of delay to the TIP revision process generated from various administrative or pro- cess issues; and • Use of technology, paperwork reduction, procedural streamlining, and other means to introduce increased efficiencies into the TIP revision process. The purpose of this report is to share the experience and practice of TIP revisions among MPOs, in the hopes of making the TIP revision processes as efficient as possible to avoid project delays; enhance opportunities for engag- ing required stakeholder agencies; and improve information flows and relationships among MPOs, local agencies, DOTs, FHWA, and FTA. LITERATURE REVIEW The literature review of TIP revision processes conducted for this synthesis included both external documentation devel- oped by research institutions, regional planning associations

7 STUDY METHODOLOGY The study began with a literature review of existing pro- cesses, from which a survey process was developed. The findings of the report draw heavily from direct contact with MPOs generated through a three-phase process. The first phase consisted of a brief screening questionnaire sent to all state DOTs and FHWA and FTA offices to identify candidate MPOs for a detailed survey. The screening process identi- fied 45 MPOs to survey. The MPO survey contained detailed questions about sources of delay, satisfaction with estab- lished processes, and issues encountered in both amendment and modification processes and the mitigations developed to respond to those issues. From the completed second-phase surveys, 10 MPOs were selected for case examples to further develop key concepts of agency relationships and individual experiences that may be transferable to other MPOs and state transportation agencies. From these efforts, the report con- cludes with a state-of-the-practice overview of TIP amend- ment/modification procedures and notable findings from the 10 case examples. To identify MPOs for further study, each office of the FHWA (n = 50), FTA (n = 10), and state DOTs (n = 50) was sent a web-based screening questionnaire. The questionnaire ments. Financial uncertainty, particularly when expressed by project cost underestimates or overestimates, can create programming problems. If the project was initially underes- timated in the TIP, then funds will frequently be moved from other projects, requiring changes to both funding levels and scheduling elements in the TIP project descriptions. If the project cost was initially overestimated in the TIP, then that project will require a reduction in funding shown in the TIP, at a minimum (5,6). Similarly, a lack of advance awareness of congressional earmarks often requires unexpected shifts in a regional allo- cation of dollars unanticipated by the sponsors of the project earmark (5,6). A report completed after a best practices scan in 2010 by AASHTO noted that volatility in TIPs and STIPs, in particular, results in the need for changes to project costs and schedules, as well as the addition of new projects. Metropoli- tan plans require changes less frequently, and therefore present far less of a challenge. The number of amendments and admin- istrative actions that MPOs and DOTs take for TIPs and STIPs varies widely. Large, complex MPOs, such as the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, require hundreds of actions each year, whereas smaller MPOs and states may only require a handful. MPOs vary the frequency of amendments, from periods as brief as daily to as long as quarterly (6).   FIGURE 1 Map locating the MPOs studied.

8 asked the respondents what organization they represented, and if there were MPOs that exhibited notable character- istics of efficiency, public involvement, innovation, or col- laboration in their TIP revision process. Respondents were invited to list up to five MPOs that exhibited one or more of these traits (refer to Appendix A for the complete text of the questionnaire). All of the respondents cited at least one, and as many as five, MPOs that exhibited some or all of these four characteristics. The distribution of MPOs engaged for further study is illustrated in Figure 1. The selection of participant MPOs relied heavily on the strength of recom- mendations from the screening questionnaire, as well as geo- graphic distribution, size, and air quality conformity status. Table 2 continued on p. 9 Table 1 summarizes the techniques in place at MPOs to aid in the processing of TIP revisions in several different areas (procedural, technological, and standardization). The table summaries information gathered from survey responses and case examples. The MPOs listed in Table 2 were selected for a second round of study. Thirty-seven of the 45 MPOs surveyed responded to the questionnaire (response rate: 82%); 10 of those respondents were later contacted for additional interviews. Interviews were conducted with eight Transportation Management Associa- tions (TMAs) and two non-TMAs. Additionally, eight of the 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

9 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 from p. 8 Table 2 continued on p. 10

10 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. Table 2 continued from p. 9

Next: CHAPTER TWO State of the Practice in Transportation Improvement Program Revision Procedures »
Transportation Improvement Program Revision Process Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 419: Transportation Improvement Program Revision Process compiles and documents the different ways that metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) approach revising a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) once it has been adopted.

Federal legislation requires MPOs to adopt and regularly update a TIP identifying a prioritized list of projects covering a four-year period.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!