White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments (2020)

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.

19 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments 2. Jurisdictional Transfer as Right-Sizing 2.1. Introduction This white paper summarizes findings from three case studies of state DOT practice for jurisdictional transfer: California, Minnesota, and Arizona. Each case example addresses the process and justification for jurisdictional transfer within the state DOT. Jurisdictional transfer is situated within the overall framework of right-sizing ‒ meaning that jurisdictional transfer is considered as a potential avenue toward changing the size, composition and extent of the transportation system to arrive at a more efficient use of resources that better meets a current understanding of community and system performance needs. Each case example is organized to cover the following areas: (1) Representing the need for jurisdictional transfer; (2) Identifying and analyzing the transfer option; (3) Implementation, including negotiations and costs to transfer; and (4) Lessons learned and conclusions for right-sizing. Jurisdictional transfer is instructive to the broader issue of right-sizing in that it is perhaps the most formal existing framework in which DOTs engage with the communities they serve to understand: (a) The implications of changing network composition and user demand, (b) The nuances of different organizational capacities to deliver solutions to identified needs, and (c) The trade-off between up-front costs and long-term costs and benefits involved in making a significant modification to the way a component of the transportation system is operated. 2.2. Caltrans: Jurisdictional Relinquishment as Right-Sizing Material for this case example was gathered through document reviews, as well as through a semi-structured interview with staff at the Multimodal System Planning Office in the Division of Transportation Planning at Caltrans. 2

20 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments Representing the Need for Right‐Sizing  Background: Relinquishment from the State Highway System in California   California’s State Highway System (SHS) is defined by Section 300 of the California Streets and Highways Code. This network was established in the early 20th century. The current legislatively defined purpose of the SHS is described as follows: It is the intent of the Legislature, in enacting this article, that the routes of the state highway system serve the state's heavily traveled rural and urban corridors, that they connect the communities and regions of the state, and that they serve the state's economy by connecting centers of commerce, industry, agriculture, mineral wealth, and recreation.1 In practice, Caltrans interprets this mission as being oriented toward serving interregional travel, and providing for longer-distance connections of statewide importance, rather than local-serving travel. Over time, however, the original purpose of certain parts of the SHS has evolved to be out of alignment with this overall statewide objective. This happens due to development growth along what were formerly mostly rural through-corridors, as well as the continual evolution of the network itself, where newer and better alignments might supersede old connections. In particular, Caltrans is aware of locations where road segments on the SHS are serving more as local arterials or main streets than as intercity highways. Addressing this mismatch, Caltrans has a series of processes in place to achieve relinquishment of portions of the SHS to applicable local governments. There are four formal types of relinquishments: (1) Legislative enactment: These relinquishments are at present initiated by local governments interested in taking on a road segment from the state ‒ typically because it has transitioned to a more local-serving use. They require a formal process overseen by the Office of Multimodal System Planning, which includes an evaluation by the state of appropriateness of relinquishment, as well as legislative action to remove from the SHS. (2) Superseded by relocation: These relinquishments arise from a project such as a bypass that has created a new SHS connection, therefore rendering an old alignment irrelevant from a SHS perspective. These relinquishments are dealt with as part of the overall project process that leads to them. (3) Collateral facilities: These relinquishments apply to collateral facilities such as frontage roads, service roads, or park-and-ride facilities. They are not core to the functionality of the SHS. Relinquishment of collateral facilities is also often the result of a specific project, and therefore dealt with within that process. However, in the case of park-and- ride facilities, there is also a process of evaluation overseen by the Office of Multimodal System Planning. (4) Nonmotorized Transportation Facilities: I.e. facilities primarily used by pedestrians, bicyclists, or equestrians. These can also be relinquished to local governments who wish to take them on. 1 Section 300 of the California Streets and Highways Code.

21 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments Identifying the Need to Right‐Size via Relinquishment  From the perspective of matching state resources to statewide objectives, all forms of relinquishment can quality as right-sizing. However, from a broader societal perspective, relinquishment can do more than reduce the lifecycle cost burden carried by the state. It in fact enables a closer matching between infrastructure design and operating policies and local needs. On a state highway segment that serves a main street or local arterial, local governments may be interested in a variety of complete-streets type improvements such as the addition of bulb outs to help with pedestrian crossings, specially design bike lane or sidewalk features, or even the introduction of restaurant seating into the street right-of-way. When a segment is owned by the state, each such change must be reviewed and permitted by the state. In some cases, desired modifications are rejected based on the application of statewide design codes. They might also be rejected based on the inability of the state to incorporate major modifications to its maintenance protocols and equipment (e.g., to enable the use of specialized pavers) ‒ where a local government would not face similar barriers. In other situations, the modifications might be approved, but impose a process costs on locals as well as an additional exception management burden on the state. Similarly, developers can face a dual permitting process with both local governments and the state when building new sidewalks or driveways that encroach onto a state highway segment. In these cases, the mismatch might be best addressed by changing the ownership status of the roads. There are also specific regulatory situations in which local ownership enables particular types of changes to the nature of infrastructure that would not be possible under state ownerships. These include situations such as a park-and-rides adjacent to mixed-use development where regulations that apply to state facilities restrict how revenues can be raised and locals want more flexibility for development, as well as other situations that involve the generation of revenue on parts of the SHS. Relinquishment Within the DOT Business Process  Relinquishment at Caltrans is an ongoing process that at present is typically initiated by an expression of interest by local governments. Legislative enactment and park-and-ride relinquishments begin with preparation of a Relinquishment Assessment Report (RAR) by district planners. The RAR is then submitted to the Caltrans Division of Transportation Planning (Headquarters) for determination of whether or not relinquishment is in the interest of the state. If it is, the process moves forward according to rules defined in Chapter 25 of the Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual. Relinquishment determinations based on the RAR are made explicitly within the context of the overall long-range system planning process ‒ in recognition of their relationships between relinquishment and overall system planning to fit the evolving needs of the state and agency, as documented in the RAR guidelines.2 In addition to the ongoing process, Caltrans has in the last five years been taking a closer look at relinquishment as a potential issue of strategic importance to agency operations. 2 Caltrans. Relinquishment Assessment Report Guidelines, 2015.

22 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments In 2012, Caltrans undertook an overall program review effort aimed at being more strategic about how agency resources are used. The review was motivated by declining transportation funding, changes in the role of local transportation partners, and increasing expectations for efficiency and accountability.3 It also occurred within the context of new leadership in the governor’s office and related organizational efforts within the agency. One outcome of the review was a recommendation that the Caltrans: Develop strategy for accomplishing the relinquishment of designated routes no longer part of the state highway system that remain Caltrans responsibility. Fully scope this effort, starting with a comprehensive listing of those routes, and fiscal information from maintenance on their current management costs.4 This program review was closely followed by an external assessment by the State Smart Transportation Initiative (SSTI), which included the following recommendation regarding relinquishments: Caltrans should find ways to transfer local-serving roads to local government. Caltrans is saddled with many road segments that were once intercity trunk routes but that now serve as local arterials. These “stroads” ‒ street-road hybrids ‒ are problematic, because Caltrans frequently imposes auto-centric standards, e.g., by restricting curb bump outs or refuge islands that would improve pedestrian safety in an urban environment. They also require Caltrans resources for maintenance and rebuilding, even though they serve mostly local travelers. Caltrans is already categorizing such facilities to identify streets (some of which never leave city limits) that are good candidates for transfer. CalSTA and stakeholders should support Caltrans’ efforts, which may require funding to induce local governments to take on new responsibilities.5 Following these recommendations, Caltrans undertook an internal evaluation effort (2014) to start considering the issue from a more strategic statewide perspective and to assess the scope of the relinquishment need within the agency. The internal effort solicited suggestions from each of the 12 districts of relinquishment candidates. Districts were given guidance to offer segments that had or were likely to get local support for relinquishment and that no longer serve an interregional travel need but act more like a local arterial. In addition, Caltrans suggested that districts start with consideration of links within urbanized areas or incorporated cities, based on the assumption at that local political will and resources are more likely to exist there. However, rural highways were still considered if they served as main streets and were likely to garner strong local support. The internal process compiled a list of candidates and organized them into three tiers of priorities, based on expected ease of relinquishment. Ultimately, results were not published as the agency did not have the funding necessary to tackle relinquishment at a system-wide level and starting the conversation without that would create unnecessary political 3 Caltrans. Caltrans Plan for the Future: 2012 Program Review. 4 Caltrans. Caltrans Plan for the Future: 2012 Program Review. 5 State Smart Transportation Initiative. The California Department of Transportation: SSTI Assessment and Recommendations, 2014. http://www.dot.ca.gov/CIP/docs/SSTIReport.pdf.

23 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments risk. If a larger program of funding becomes available, this process could be continued by taking the preliminary list out for vetting with local partners and further refining from there. That would entail a more disaggregate engagement process than is typical for the DOT, which tends to work through MPOs and Regional Transportation Planning Agencys (RTPA), as jurisdictional relinquishment must be enacted at the level of individual local governments. Caltrans interest in relinquishment is two-fold: First, the agency is interested in reducing lifecycle cost responsibilities which would enable a shift of resources toward actions that are more in line with the DOT mission of serving interregional and statewide travel needs. Second, Caltrans wishes to facilitate, where appropriate, the better meeting of local needs and preferences in terms of the design and function of a road and its compatibility with the surrounding development context. This latter objective has increased in importance over time as Caltrans engages in a more focused manner in complete streets initiatives and associated goals of sustainability and livability, as well as in consideration of land-use transportation interactions. Identifying and Analyzing Right‐Sizing Options  Determination of Relinquishment Appropriateness: Evaluation in the RAR  The RAR is the first formal step in the relinquishment process6 and determines whether or not from the State Highway System/State DOT perspective, a state route or park-and-ride should be relinquished. The report is prepared by district planners, then submitted to Headquarters Division of Transportation Planning. It is intended to ensure a consistent and coordinated statewide process. There is a template that districts must use, organized into the following six sections (for routes; park-and-rides are very similar): 1. Description of Route and Basis of Request for Relinquishment 2. Route or Corridor Concept and Recommendations for Route Development 3. District coordination with RTPAs 4. Coordination with State, Federal, and Tribal Plans and Programs 5. Internal District Coordination 6. Map and Photos Section 1 provides basic information about the route, as well as a discussion of who is requesting relinquishment and why. Specifically, districts are asked to: Explain the issues and history including request for encroachment permits and issues with approving or denying requests. Include district/local jurisdiction local development 6 Some relinquishment types do not require an RAR. These include: relinquishment of a state route by superseding with a new state route, relinquishment of collateral facilities (excluding park-and-ride facilities), relinquishment of non-motorized transportation facilities.

24 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments discussions, comments, and issues. Document context-sensitive solutions efforts and what could and could not be resolved under state ownership of the route. Explain how the relinquishment benefits local planning and community design and circulation considerations.7 Section 2 goes into more detail regarding projected future traffic volumes, origin-destination travel patterns, and the role played by the segment in supporting interregional or major regional trips. Districts are asked to describe major destinations served (e.g., a regional mall, industrial park, airport, etc.) as well as the primary users of the route (e.g., recreational, commuter, freight). The districts are also prompted to discuss any negative effects that relinquishment might have on truck access, including intermodal transfer activities, as well as the degree to which relinquishment might cause rerouting of traffic and therefore create a need for additional capacity elsewhere on the state system. Any prior planning efforts related to the relinquishment are to be documented and the district is specifically required to document the position of local agencies, including inter-jurisdictional coordination efforts. Section 3 addresses coordination with the RTPA and/or Metropolitan Planning Organization in the area, and Section 4 similarly addresses coordination with state and federal entities. Section 5 defines district responsibilities for the relinquishment process, and Section 6 requests maps and photos of the relevant segment. Example RAR Evaluation: State Route 74, Between Interstate 15 and the City of  Perris, CA (8.4 miles)  The following excerpts from a recent RAR illustrate how the document is used to define and evaluate a relinquishment need. The relinquishment in question would be of portions of State Route 74 (SR-74) to the City of Lake Elsinore and to the County of Riverside. On relinquishment as a means toward more logical network definition: Relinquishment of SR-74 as proposed will eliminate a stub route condition resulting from a previous relinquishment of SR-74 to the City of Perris. On relinquishment to meet needs emerging from local development plans: Equally important, this SR-74 segment is deemed to be a crucial component of a major, sub-regional transportation corridor currently under joint, conceptual development by the County of Riverside and the City of Lake Elsinore. Tentatively called the “Ethanac-SR-74-Nichols Corridor” this major local expressway is being developed to utilize existing roadway alignments that will accommodate travelers more efficiently to attract and serve local development activity. Documenting shifts in the local development context that precipitate the need for relinquishment: The interregional functionality of SR-74 has declined recently as local development has converted formerly vacant or rural acreage to suburban residential and neighborhood commercial areas. 7 Caltrans. Relinquishment Assessment Report Guidelines, 2015.

25 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments Local development uses planned within the City of Lake Elsinore and its sphere-of influence (SOI) territory includes future business professional zones and additional commercial acreage. For the County of Riverside, local development adjacent to SR-74 is presently limited to the Colinas del Oro Specific Plan No. 364 proposed at Ethanac Road. Build-out of this specific plan will include medium-to-high density residential areas as well as commercial zones and open space. Presenting information on current and projected future truck traffic, and discussion of potential effects of relinquishment on truck movements. The truck traffic is not expected to change as a result of the relinquishments. The major movements focus on local truck traffic and the improvements by the local agencies will ensure the facility improvement performance which should benefit truck travel. Current AADT 31,000 2035 AADT 42,005 % Trucks 5% Analyzing origin-destination travel patterns: While SR-74 once served as a link between Riverside and Orange Counties, this interregional access has been displaced by Interstates 15 and 215 over the last several decades. The overall RAR process has been in place for quite some time but was previously under a different name (Transportation System Analysis and Evaluation (TSAE) report). Caltrans did streamline the RAR in the last few year and establish a more well-defined template to better provide for uniformity of evaluation across the state. Relevance of Tools and Data to the Relinquishment Evaluation Process  Most of the relinquishment evaluation process is based on qualitative analysis, and consultation with planning partners regarding their transportation and development plans. However, there are some tools and data that are relevant to the relinquishment evaluation process. Namely, Caltrans staff indicate that is important to analyze who is on a particular piece of highway and the nature of their trip (whether long-distance or local). Apart from relying on local knowledge, this can be most readily achieved through use of the statewide model, which incorporates information from constituent MPO/RTPA models. In particular, data on freight movements can be particularly valuable. Note that while there can be issues resolving statewide and regional model perspectives, in practice this does not tend to be a major source of disagreement in the relinquishment process ‒ given that it is currently driven by local desire to take on ownership of highways. Cost to Relinquish and Analysis of Agency Cost Outcomes  Statutorily, Caltrans is under no obligation “to put a facility into a state of good repair, construct improvements or betterments, or incur a financial obligation of any kind to relinquish a state

26 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments highway to a local agency by legislative enactment.”8 Nevertheless, while this is the initial premise of any discussions with local partners, Caltrans does at times recognize the value of putting money toward the relinquishment and recognizes that facilities need to be safe and operable when they are turned over. The three options for a relinquishment by legislative enactment are a) no cost, b) financial contribution only, or c) capital project. If either funding is to be transferred to the local government or a capital project is to be delivered prior to relinquishment, then the state’s project development policies require a formal relinquishment agreement between Caltrans and the receiving local government. Except in no cost cases, Caltrans must prepare a benefit-cost analysis, as defined in the Project Development Procedures Manual: The benefit-cost analysis will compare the costs to maintain and operate the road with the cost to relinquish over a ten-year period utilizing an assumed interest rate based on the escalation rate used in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and SHOPP, and appropriate costs and benefits specific to the portion of the state highway segment in question. State of good repair is required for cases of a state highway that has been superseded by relocation type of relinquishment. This does not include capacity increases or other betterments. In the course of their 2014 internal evaluation effort, Caltrans did seek to estimate a ballpark cost to relinquish identified highway segments. To do so, staff used generalized calculations and produced a range of costs, including an assessment of basic preventative maintenance costs, more substantial pavement rehabilitation and reconstruction costs, and ADA upgrade costs associated with bringing highway facilities in compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. They also estimated average annual savings from relinquishment. These figures were not ultimately published but were intended to grant an internal understanding of the scope of the need. In the end, Caltrans determined that the cost was at that time too great to pursue systematically without some sort of additional (possibly dedicated) funding and that currently available resources would be best spent elsewhere, or on case-by-case relinquishments pursued within the existing process. Implementing and Tracking Outcomes  Negotiating Costs and Relinquishment Agreements  Caltrans districts are responsible for negotiating the cost to relinquish, if any, of legislative relinquishments with local governments. These are then codified in relinquishment agreements. The decision as to whether the cost terms negotiated represent a good business decision for Caltrans is mainly based on the benefit-cost analysis results. There are cases where local governments are willing or desirous of taking on a highway, but their requests in terms of funding or improvements are too great to be implementable, at least within current levels of funding. Funding for legislative relinquishments currently competes with other operations and 8 Caltrans. Project Development Procedures Manual: Chapter 25 ‒ Relinquishments, 2014. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/pdpm/chap_pdf/chapt25.pdf.

27 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments preservation activities inside the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP). If an agreement is successfully reached with local government and SHOPP funds are indeed available, the relinquishment is enacted through a California Transportation Commission (CTC) Relinquishment Resolution. There are a series of conflict resolution procedures in place if agreement cannot be reached, with the CTC serving as the final arbiter of terms. Note that at present, Caltrans does not pursue legislative relinquishment without local government support, making available funding rather than conflict of terms the most salient issue for implementation. Caltrans also has a chapter in its Project Development Procedure Manual on developing Cooperative Agreements.9 These are legally binding contracts that enable the “exchange of effort, funding, or materials between Caltrans and a public entity regarding the planning, design, or construction of an improvement or facility on the State Highway System” ‒ of which relinquishment agreements are one type. Caltrans headquarters also provides standard templates to assist in the process. Tracking and Reevaluation  At present, there is no framework in place for cyclical reevaluation of relinquishment potential or needs in California. Districts proceed based on expressed local interest and the procedures set up by Caltrans for implementation on a case-by-case basis. While the internal evaluation effort pursued by the agency did have the long-term goal of establishing and maintaining a statewide relinquishment list, this is currently not the case because of insufficient funding. Again, without sufficient funding, the opinion of the DOT is that defining any sort of list creates political risks that outweigh any gains available from strategic planning. The situation in California with respect to systematic relinquishment may change with the recent passage of California Senate Bill 1, a major transportation funding package. The bill increases the SHOPP program, through which relinquishments are currently funded, by approximately $1.9 billion per year over the current approximately $2.5 billion per year program of projects.10 Lessons Learned and Conclusions for Right‐Sizing  The following lessons learned are gleaned from the materials provided by Caltrans and discussion with Caltrans staff. Some are derived insights from the discussions above, while others were offered directly by Caltrans staff in response to an interview question about key conclusions for the research.  Jurisdictional relinquishment is and can be a means of achieving a more right-size transportation system, not only from the perspective of reducing a state’s lifecycle cost burden, but also ‒ and perhaps more importantly ‒ by enabling a better matching 9 Caltrans. Project Development Procedures Manual: Chapter 16 ‒ Cooperative Agreements. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/pdpm/chap_pdf/chapt16.pdf. 10 R. Guevel, “State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP),” Presentation at the California Transportation Commission Senate Bill 1 Implementation Workshop, June 9, 2017. http://www.catc.ca.gov/programs/SB_1/6-9-17_SHOPP_Overview.pdf.

28 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments between local preferences and development contexts and infrastructure design and operations.  While data on traffic volumes, mixes, and origin-destination patterns can offer valuable insight into the appropriateness of relinquishment, qualitative data collection and collaborative discussion with local partners is key to determining the nature of the right- sizing need.  Caltrans clearly recognizes a range of broader societal benefits of relinquishment. However, current analysis procedures are restricted to comparing maintenance savings over time with up-front cost to relinquish negotiated with local governments.  Caltrans finds that it can be hard to make the case based on a very long payback period of maintenance savings compared to up-front costs to relinquish. This is particularly true in a constrained funding environment when the choices faced by the agency is between addressing poor conditions on a relatively larger portion of the system or implementing a handful of relinquishments. This equation might feel different if relinquishments were competing with one another rather than with other maintenance projects, or if there were better ways of documenting the societal benefits of design and operational changes enabled by relinquishment (e.g., supporting local development, livability benefits).  When considering taking on a portion of the state highway system, local governments tend to consider their ability to afford upkeep, their desire to implement things that are impossible or burdensome under state regulation, and their ability to manage additional legal liability. This latter issue is more important than one might expect a priori. Whereas the state is a large organization with the wherewithal to handle legal action that can result from accidents, local governments have fewer resources and may not feel similarly capable. 2.3. MnDOT: Jurisdictional Realignment as a Means of Right- Sizing Material for this case example was gathered through document reviews, as well as through a series of interviews with MnDOT staff. Representing the Need for Right‐Sizing  Background: MnDOT Jurisdictional Realignment Project   Starting around 2011, MnDOT embarked upon a jurisdictional realignment project, the purpose of which was to “ensure that Minnesota roads are owned and operated at the right jurisdictional level.”11 The project developed and then applied a methodology to identify “misaligned” roadway segments that are candidates for jurisdictional realignment (state to local or local to state). Motivation for the project was both “bottom up” and “top down.” Interest in realignment was expressed on an ongoing basis by local jurisdictions and while there was already a process in place to achieve this, MnDOT recognized the need to assess realignments from a more 11 MnDOT. Minnesota Jurisdictional Realignment Project: Final Report. 2014. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/programlibrary/jrp-final-report.pdf.

29 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments programmatic perspective. At the same time, interest in jurisdictional realignment came from within MnDOTs more centralized planning process. Minnesota’s 50-year vision (Minnesota GO) defines a goal to “better align the transportation system with what Minnesotans expect for their quality of life, economy and natural environment”12 and emphasizes consistency and collaboration across jurisdictions and sectors as a means to achieve this goal. In fact, one of the guiding principles of the effort speaks directly to right-sizing: Strategically fix the system: Some parts of the system may need to be reduced while other parts are enhanced or expanded to meet changing demand. Strategically maintain and upgrade critical existing infrastructure.13 According to MnDOT staff, one avenue toward this is trying to ensure that the right agency is empowered to make the right decision. MnDOT was additionally looking to enhance its “financial effectiveness” in the context of a 20-Year State Highway Investment Plan that projected a $12 billion funding gap over 20 years.14 Discussions of misalignment in Minnesota has been long in the making. Prior evaluations completed in the 1980s and 1990s began to describe the issue at a system level, and define objectives for realignment, but never achieved adequate closure in terms of a defining an actionable program that could then be incorporated into MnDOT’s work going forward. The most recent effort sought to close this gap by from a holistic perspective (a) defining the goals of realignment, and (b) determining what it would take (in terms of process as well as funding) to achieve this objective. Identifying the Need to Right‐Size via Jurisdictional Realignment  MnDOT views jurisdictional realignment as a means toward right-sizing in the sense that it brings agencies together to determine what best fits a specific context, and what best serves the public. The DOT outlines a series of problems with misaligned roads, as shown in Table 3. 12 MnDOT. Minnesota GO 50-Year Vision for Transportation. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/minnesotago/vision.html. 13 MnDOT. Minnesota GO 50-Year Vision for Transportation. 14 MnDOT. Minnesota Jurisdictional Realignment Project: Summary Memo. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/programlibrary/jrp-summary-memo.pdf.

30 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments Table 3 Key Issues with Misaligned Roads According to MnDOT  Misaligned roads may not provide appropriate level of service for users in terms of both capacity and customer expectations, such as safety, ride quality and maintenance  Misaligned roads may use the wrong source of funding, which may not contain required funds for improvements. This may result in a lower service level than if the road was properly aligned/owned by the appropriate jurisdiction  Misaligned roads may lead to an “impaired” network of roads due to differing jurisdiction priorities (that is, the road conditions may change significantly while traveling and may not meet traveler’s expectations)  Misaligned roads may not receive the priority for funding or improvements, and as a result, misaligned roads that are widely used may be underserved while others may be over-served Source: MnDOT. Minnesota Jurisdictional Realignment Project: Final Report. 2014.  Local government interest in acquiring a piece of state trunk highway stems from operational, design, and priority-related considerations. From an operational standpoint, local agencies may be able to respond more quickly to maintenance needs (e.g., at a signal), whereas the state maintenance force may be an hour or two away. Aligning maintenance activity with local agency would provide better level of service. With respect to things like ride quality, MnDOT and localities may have different approaches to programming maintenance (such as seal coats) that can lead to inconsistencies across a route experienced by the public, if ownership is fragmented. Ownership also has direct implications for prioritization. Whereas a road might not reach the top of a list when competing at the state level, local ownership can enable a higher ranking of a road (including through road class designation). Finally, ownership also relates to design standards. Urban and suburban governments (less so rural governments) see value in local decision making for things like access control, rather than being subject to a statewide standard. Local control offers local governments the flexibility to provide a level of service that is more uniform across the network in their jurisdiction. This is also important because from a user/customer perspective, complaints tend to be directed to the most local jurisdiction as drivers cannot “see” ownership. In addition, MnDOT staff noted that agencies at different levels of government have tailored their in-house expertise to specific types of projects or development contexts. MnDOT has built up in- house capacity to very effectively design and operate high-speed high-volume roadways. Counties and cities, on the other hand, can be more effective at managing mid-to-low-volume roads, including dealing with CBD issues in terms of design and operations. Therefore, a county might be better set up to deliver certain types of improvements (e.g., a roundabout or a turn lane in an urban area) and might actually be able to deliver better outcomes in terms of cost and on- time delivery. Similarly, emerging practices such as Complete Streets, which are increasingly being recognized as part of “right-sizing” infrastructure, may be incorporated into agency practice more rapidly at a local level, than within a state DOT. Changes Contributing to the Need for Right‐Sizing  In Minnesota, the need for jurisdictional realignment comes up in both a project and a more general context. In the project development process, it is likely to come up with respect to the state permitting process. For example, if a local agency wishes to change access or add turn lanes to a state-owned trunk highway, they will apply and in some cases MnDOT will deny certain

31 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments design aspects of the request. This will then trigger thinking at the local level along the lines of, “this would be much easier if this were a local road.” In a more general context, there are obvious mismatches between road classification and agency ownership that accumulate on the system over time as the result of changes in the development context and/or network configuration. One example was a state trunk highway that once led to a state facility such as a health care facility. However, at some point the state facility closed. Subsequently, the route designation might be changed to “local” to reflect its changing function, but the state ownership stays in place, meaning that the state is left with the responsibility to maintain a local road. This is an example of a more systemic need to “clean up the system” in response to changes over time. Another frequent example is the construction of a new highway that supersedes an old route in terms of function. Unlike in some states (such as Wisconsin), there is no automatic process for a superseded route to be returned to local jurisdictions. However, such a change in the network does often precipitate discussions of a jurisdictional realignment. Interestingly, this can also happen in the reverse direction, although it is less common. For example, there was a case in Minnesota where a county built a significant new alignment just a few miles parallel to an existing trunk highway. Over the years the parallel new county alignment became the public’s choice in terms of volume and the state trunk highway was used less. Eventually, the state and county decided to swap ownership. Identifying and Analyzing Right‐Sizing Options  Identifying Misaligned Segments System Wide  MnDOT’s jurisdictional realignment project resulted in guidance document on how to identify misaligned segments in a systematic way, statewide. Some of the steps outlined were already achieved within the scope of the project, while others depend on continued work in partnership between jurisdictions. The first step involves classifying the entire network into three tiers based on their “probability of misalignment” by “cross-referencing the route system and functional class.”15 Misalignment in this process is identifiable by a mismatch between the mission or goals of the owning agency and the function of a roadway: The project team used the overarching goals of each agency to cross-reference the route system and functional class. For example, MnDOT’s key goal of mobility means that routes with a functional class of principal arterial and many minor arterials and major collectors should be owned by MnDOT. Roads with a functional class of minor collectors and local roads are primarily intended to provide access to homes, businesses, and farms—and should be owned by local agencies.16 Figure 8 presents the results of the cross-referencing and Figure 9 summarizes the potentially misaligned mileage identified by MnDOT, organized by jurisdictional ownership. 15 MnDOT. Minnesota Jurisdictional Realignment Project: Guide to Identifying Misaligned Segments, 2014. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/programlibrary/jrp-guide.pdf. 16 MnDOT. Minnesota Jurisdictional Realignment Project: Guide to Identifying Misaligned Segments, 2014.

32 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments Figure 8 MnDOT Analysis Tiers for Identifying Probability of Misalignment Source: MnDOT. Minnesota Jurisdictional Realignment Project: Guide to Identifying Misaligned Segments.  2014.  Figure 9 Identified Potentially Misaligned Mileage by Ownership Source: MnDOT. Minnesota Jurisdictional Realignment Project: Guide to Identifying Misaligned Segments. 2014  Based on this segmentation, the MnDOT project team then developed a “misalignment register” focused specifically on a subset of the network, with additional refinements and vetting of “Tier 1 segments that are either owned by MnDOT or functionally classified as principal arterials and Tier 2 segments that are owned by MnDOT.”17 The total vetted mileage is equal to 6,746 centerline miles, of which 1,181 centerline miles (2,653 lane miles) were ultimately identified as misaligned at the end of the project review process. The published guidance invites jurisdictions to either begin with this already vetted register, or to start with their own set of HPMS data and tier identification. Either way, the important next steps are to map and then review candidate segments according to criteria established as a product of the realignment project. These criteria are shown in Table 4. This review step should result in a further filtered list of candidates, based on a combination of data and local knowledge/judgment. MnDOT suggests that volume data is particularly helpful in distinguishing Tier 2 segments from one another. The guidance then instructs the analyzing agency to review with stakeholders that may include MnDOT, counties, cities, and/or township representatives. From the project experience, MnDOT suggests a two to four hour guided review sessions using maps and the same criteria as used internally by the agency. Finally, once the register of 17 MnDOT. Jurisdictional Realignment Project: Phase 1 Report, 2013. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/programlibrary/jrp-phase1-report.pdf.

33 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments misaligned segments is finalized, next steps include further engagement regarding the likely benefits of addressing misalignment as well as potential timing and funding. Table 4 Parameters Defined by Mndot for Analyzing Potentially Misaligned Segments  Road system continuity preferences: Road begins or ends with another jurisdiction, or the primary purpose is misaligned with the goals of the owning jurisdiction  System spacing: The road network is relatively too dense or too sparse in the vicinity for the owning jurisdiction  Location: The segment is located within/outside specific boundaries inconsistent with the owning jurisdiction  Length of segment/road: Segment is short, with other jurisdiction owning most of the road from the start/end point or intersection  Truck traffic volume: Higher truck traffic volume than surrounding roads  Site of national, state, or local interest: Site of national, state, or local interest that requires being owned by a particular jurisdiction  Road restrictions: Any restrictions for travel on the road that may guide jurisdictional responsibilities  Traffic volume: Relative traffic volume is inconsistent with other roads owned by the jurisdiction in the vicinity  Intermodal facilities: Segment serves an intermodal facility and is of statewide importance Source: MnDOT. Minnesota Jurisdictional Realignment Project: Guide to Identifying Misaligned Segments.  2014.  Process for Establishing Misalignment Criteria and Buy‐in  The overall jurisdictional realignment project (that resulted in the process outlined above) proceeded in two phases of iterative analysis and refinement to arrive at a set of agreed-upon and tested criteria for identifying misalignments (Figure 10). The process was initiated by the project team (consultant, MnDOT planning director, state aid staff), then gradually expanded the circle of consultation to include district engineers, and ultimately pilot applications of the process with three counties.

34 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments Figure 10 High-Level Approach: Minnesota Jurisdictional Realignment Project Source: MnDOT. Minnesota Jurisdictional Realignment Project: Final Report. 2014.  http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/programlibrary/jrp‐final‐report.pdf   Implementation  Jurisdictional Realignment Funding  Although some local agencies are willing to take on ownership of roads “as is,” there is typically a cost to implement a jurisdictional realignment ‒ whether in the form of a project delivered by MnDOT or local government, or in the form of a transfer of funds along with road infrastructure to the receiving local government. Funding for these types of improvements is secured in several ways. First, Minnesota has a specific allocation in their Highway User Tax Distribution Fund called the “Flexible Highway Account” that is “apportioned to individual agencies for the restoration of former trunk highways that have been turned back to the municipalities or counties and designated state aid.”18 This program was in 2017 funded at $54 million. However, according to MnDOT staff, this level of funding is a “drop in the bucket” compared with the need, thus contributing to a backlog of realignments that might have proceeded if additional funding was available. Beginning to address this backlog, MnSHIP 2017, MnDOT’s 20-year fiscally constrained capital investment plan, for the first time defined an investment category for trunk highway investment in jurisdictional transfers. While the amount is small ($90 million over 20 years, or 0.4% of the total capital highway investment planned), it allows transfers to be a part of the discussion when resources are being distributed.19 18 MnDOT. Local Roads and Bridges Highway Users Tax Distribution Fund, 2017. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/admin/sa-hutdf.pdf. 19 MnDOT. 20-Year State Highway Investment Plan, 2018‒2037. http://minnesotago.org/application/files/3414/8431/5979/MnSHIP_Final_Jan2017.pdf.

35 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments In addition, jurisdictional realignments can in certain cases be funded through MnDOT’s “Investment Opportunity Plan.” This plan includes projects that were not achievable through the standard programming process, but that can be opportunistically funded if/when MnDOT releases funding contingencies out of programs/projects at the end of a funding cycle. Finally, there have been cases where MnDOT has a specific project already programmed for a roadway and rather than delivering that project, agrees to transfer the associated funds to the receiving local government who takes over responsibility for improvements (see example below). Realigned segments can also remain eligible for flexible highway account funds for a period of 15 years after the actual realignment, which offers additional flexibility. Negotiating Costs and Agreements  The following two agreements are presented as illustrative examples of the nature of jurisdictional realignment negotiations in Minnesota. TRANSFER OF A PORTION OF TRUNK HIGHWAY (TH) 212 FROM MNDOT TO CARVER COUNTY, MN Background. This agreement covers a seven-mile section of TH 212 in Carver County, MN. The section was no longer needed on the state system as it had been functionally replaced by a new limited access highway. Cost to Transfer. As part of the agreement, MnDOT agreed to pay Carver County a lump sum amount of $5.4 million. This amount represents the cost of “current roadway rehabilitation and maintenance repairs, including but not limited to, full width pavement mill and overlay, sign replacement, guardrail repair and replacement, and culvert repair and replacement, that the state will not be performing on that portion of Trunk Highway No. 212 prior to its release to the jurisdiction of the county.”20 This $5.4 million represents that cost of immediate repair needs already programmed into the MnDOT district’s allocation of funding. The section of highway is also made eligible for flexible highway account funding in a period following the agreement, for longer term improvement needs. Insights from the Process. MnDOT staff report that the negotiation and management process for this realignment was not entirely straightforward and offers lesson learned. The fact that the realignment was not bundled with the project development process for the new replacement highway led to inefficiencies. It removed some of the leverage the state otherwise might have had in negotiations with the county. In addition, the relatively long period of anticipation for the realignment (based on the knowledge of the new highway project) resulted in decisions to defer maintenance on the MnDOT side of things in favor of other higher-priority needs. This likely resulted in higher overall lifecycle costs for the highway than would have occurred otherwise. It also made the $5.4 million up-front funding critical to convincing Carver County to accept the roadway that was in need of immediate repairs. 20 MnDOT. Agreement No. 93384, “State release to the County of that portion of T.H. 212 from C.S.A.H. 11 to the Carver/Hennepin County line,” 2009.

36 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments TRANSFER OF A PORTION OF TH 5 FROM MNDOT TO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MN21 Background. This agreement covers an 8.3-mile section of TH 5, also called Stillwater Boulevard North, northeast of downtown St. Paul, MN. The section was superseded functionally by parallel routes on the state trunk highway network, namely I-94 and MN-36. Cost to Transfer. $22 million in funds were transferred from the state to Washington County as part of the agreement. The amount of funding negotiated represents a middle ground between short-term repair needs that would have been programmed by the state and the cost of longer term reconstruction needs identified by the county. The funding itself was secured through the investment opportunity plan ‒ i.e., funds leftover at the end of MnDOT’s biennium. Insights from the Process. The jurisdictional realignment was implemented in an opportunistic manner, based on groundwork that had been laid previously by local planning and through cooperation between the state and the county. Prior to the funding becoming available, and the final agreement, there had been a memorandum of understanding in place between the state and county since the 1990s identifying roads that ultimately should be transferred to local ownership. This MOU did not define funding requirements but did establish a goal to be mutually worked toward. In addition, the roadway had been identified as a target for realignment in the county transportation plan ‒ a component of the comprehensive plan. With the prior planning and understanding in place, the realignment had a level of readiness that enabled the use of redistributed contingency funds. The agreement was finalized in a matter of months before the available funding expired. Program‐Level Planning for Right‐Sizing via Realignment  Another part of the jurisdictional realignment project was using planning-level cost information to calculate costs to transfer all misaligned segments ‒ as a means of assessing the scope of the need. These cost estimates reflect what would be required to bring roads and bridges “up to good condition and design standards.” 22 The analysis employed the following information:  Statewide unit costs, from the MnDOT pavement and bridge management systems, for four types of treatments: mill and overlay, pavement rehabilitation, bridge re-decking, and bridge and pavement reconstruction.  Conditions data, also from the MnDOT pavement and bridge management systems.  Input from state aid engineers and county engineers regarding compliance with design standards. Treatment plans were defined based on conditions thresholds from the management systems, with revisions based on stakeholder feedback (state aid engineers, county engineers, and others). Most revisions were made in relation to non-compliance with design standards (i.e., 21 MnDOT. Agreement No. 1000677, 2015. 22 MnDOT. Minnesota Jurisdictional Realignment Project: Final Report, 2014.

37 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments recommending reconstruction for a road that does not meet standards, despite average conditions). Ultimately the project identified 1,181 centerline miles as misaligned. The total cost identified for  these miles is $1.44 billion, or $542,000 per lane mile, including bridges. The misaligned mileage was  then further broken down into tiers, based on anticipated complexity of the transfer (a function of  prior conversations with jurisdictional partners, as well as current segment condition).  For MnDOT, next steps are two‐fold: First, the agency will continue to support districts and local  planning partners who wish to pursue jurisdictional realignments as opportunities arise in the form  of consensus and available funding. To maximize the effectiveness of existing jurisdictional transfer  funding, MnDOT staff emphasize the need to anticipate transfer opportunities well in advance of project scoping, and to work toward coordinating transfers with regularly programmed preservation projects, supplemented by the new MnSHIP jurisdictional transfer program dollars.  Second, MnDOT staff are continuing to work toward defining and implementing a realignment  program, alongside discussions of potentially securing additional funding. Part of that conversation  will involve expressing the scope of the need in terms of opportunity costs ‒ i.e., because MnDOT is  still managing and investing in segments that could be better managed by other jurisdictions to  meet local needs, there are other needs on the state system that are going unmet. This, according  to MnDOT staff, is the accumulated cost of not having a “right‐sized” system.  Lessons Learned and Conclusions for Right‐Sizing  The following lessons learned can be offered based on MnDOT’s experience with jurisdictional realignment as a right-sizing issues, including responses offered directly by MnDOT staff in response to interview questions about key takeaways.  In a very broad sense, jurisdictional realignment addresses right-sizing in that it is a response to changing needs and composition of the transportation network, and presents a forum for different levels of government to negotiate priorities and needs at different levels.  Jurisdictional realignment also represents an avenue toward right-sizing in part because it can enable a more efficient use of different types of agency capabilities and expertise to meet emerging needs of transportation system users. In some cases, local governments are better equipped to deliver certain types of improvements such as complete streets enhancements.  The ability to apply a decision process in a consistent and therefore equitable manner is critical to success at the program-level. As MnDOT staff put it: “people talk.” It is very likely in any situation that the details of a transfer agreement will be shared across agencies. Therefore, trust and transparency are paramount. The DOT needs to be able to demonstrate a clear relationship between circumstance (i.e., infrastructure condition and need prior to transfer) and the agreed-upon solution (i.e., level of funding or nature of project agreed upon as part of the transfer). MnDOT has learned this in part the hard way, after facing legal action in this arena.  Money is tricky. Sometimes money can help the discussion, and sometimes it can derail everything. When assessing misalignment at the system level, MnDOT made a conscious

38 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments decision to leave funding off the table until later in the process. This was to ensure a focus on defining shared objectives and criteria that are reflective of the realignment/right-sizing need. Similarly, in the specific case of Washington County, money was not on the table when the initial MOU established a shared goal of transferring a segment of TH 5 from the state to the county. On the other hand, in the case of Carver County, the realignment discussion would never have proceeded at all without discussing funding to address immediate needs on the road. MnDOT staff also emphasize that cost to relinquish discussions should start with defining needs, not simply naming monetary sums.  Finally, it cannot be escaped that ‒ at least within the legislative framework MnDOT operates in‒jurisdictional realignments will always be to a degree opportunistic. While there is clear value in planning to anticipate funding needs, ultimately transfers only happen when there are two partners at the table. This reemphasizes the importance of long-term relationships and trust, as well as a thoughtful process that understands network composition as a continually evolving endeavor to be undertaken by the DOT along with its local planning partners. 2.4. ADOT: Jurisdictional Transfer and Low-Volume Roads This case is based in part on materials previously gathered by the author in support of the forthcoming NCHRP on Investment Prioritization Methods for Low-Volume Roads, which included an interview with ADOT staff, as well as subsequent additional document review. Representing the Need for Right‐Sizing  Background: ADOT Study of Low‐Volume Roads  In 2017, ADOT published its first comprehensive planning study of low-volume roads. Low- volume roads (LVR), as defined by the agency, include all roads on the state system that carry less than 400 AADT. As of 2017, there were 457 centerline miles of LVR on the Arizona state system (<10% of the total system mileage). The study was motivated by the changing role of a specific LVR that serves a copper mine and conversations regarding its rerouting. This in turn “inspired a broader look at low-volume road facilities on the state system, with the objective of providing a basis for subsequent prioritized activities for the future management of each LVR.”23 The study addresses two potential avenues to more efficient operations from the perspective of the state: (a) potential for transfer of a route to another agency, and (b) other options for reducing ongoing costs for those LVR that do remain on the state system.24 The need for the 23 Stein, N., G. Weisbrod, and M. Sieber. NCHRP Synthesis 521: Investment Prioritization Methods for Low-Volume Roads, Transportation Research Board, 2018. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25142/investment-prioritization-methods-for-low-volume-roads 24 ADOT. Low Volume State Routes Study, 2017. https://ADOT.gov/docs/default-source/planning/lvr- final-report-with-es.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

39 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments study also emerged within a broader context of increased attention paid to LVR because of funding limitations. The LVR study represents an instance of system-wide evaluation of jurisdictional transfer potential. ADOT also has a very well-defined process for evaluating and implementing individual jurisdictional transfers. Both are discussed in this case example. Identifying the Need to Right‐Size via Jurisdictional Transfer  ADOT defines the reasons for jurisdictional transfer in a manner that directly responds to the changing nature of demands placed on the transportation system:25 As the road system in Arizona grows and changes to meet land development demands and population growth, the functions of the roads adapt to the needs. Roads that serve primarily local trips may be more suitable to be transferred to the local road system. Conversely, local roads that primarily serve regional and statewide through trips or connect to state roadway facilities may be candidates for transfer to the State Highway System. In both cases, a transparent and cooperative process is needed to determine which agency is best suited to provide long-term ownership and management of the road. This perspective is formally codified in policy from the Arizona State Transportation Board, as shown in Table 5. Table 5 Arizona State Transportation Board Policy 16. Transfer of State Routes Policy  It is the policy of Board that the State Highway System consist primarily of routes necessary to provide a statewide network to serve the ever-changing environment with regard to the interstate, statewide and regional movement of people and freight.  In recognition that population and employment growth in Arizona and adjacent states will, over time, create demands for new transportation facilities and later the function of some existing transportation facilities, ADOT will develop and maintain a process for transferring certain state highways to local and tribal jurisdictions and conversely, transferring certain non-state highways to the State Highway System. Routes primarily providing land access and local movement of people and goods should be the responsibility of local governments.  The transfer of state highways will be carried out in accordance with the applicable transfer statutes A.R.S. §28-7046 and §28-7209. Source: Arizona State Transportation Board Policies. 2015.  http://aztransportationboard.gov/downloads/board‐policies.pdf   In addition, ADOT’s Route Transfer Handbook lists specific reasons that transfers might be needed and reasons they can in some cases facilitate more appropriate management of roads to meet local needs. These precipitating causes are listed in Table 6. The handbook emphasizes the relationship between local ownership and the ability to “maintain the road consistent with local objectives.” 26 ADOT also acknowledges in some cases transfers are needed from a local government to the state (see reasons outlines in Table 7). 25 ADOT. Route Transfer Handbook, 2012. 26 ADOT. Route Transfer Handbook, 2012.

40 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments Table 6 Reasons Defined by ADOT for Considering Transfer of a State Highway Segment to a Local or Tribal Government  The roadway carries vehicle trips that are mostly local in nature-for shopping, local business, and recreation  The roadway function has changed and no longer provides higher-capacity continuity in the State Highway System  A new state highway bypasses a city, and the route through the city is no longer needed as part of the State Highway System  Highway realignment leaves a remnant portion of a state highway that is useful primarily for local access purposes  Having only one government making access management, maintenance, and operations decisions on a roadway might result in greater efficiency, support economic vitality, and improve community responsiveness  The local or tribal government wants to have improvements, permit accesses, or maintain the state route in a way that is different from ADOT  The highway no longer provides interstate, intrastate, or regional system connectivity Source: ADOT. Route Transfer Handbook. 2012.  Table 7 Reasons Defined by ADOT for Considering Transfer of a Local or Tribal Road or Highway to the State Highway Segment  Long-range planning indicates that the road will serve a regional or statewide function  The road may connect to a planned state route  The local road currently serves a statewide or regional function. Examples include a major urban arterial that serves mainly through traffic, or a rural route that has statewide economic importance  The road is a connector between two interstates or state highways, or between a state highway and an interstate route Source: ADOT. Route Transfer Handbook. 2012.  Identifying and Analyzing Right‐Sizing Options  Transfer Process  ADOT’s Route Transfer Guidebook has a step-by-step process for both possible directions of route transfer (upwards and downwards). These are illustrated in Figure 11 and Figure 12. The processes are very similar except for the initiating party and the type of State Transportation Board resolution required for making the transfer. While the guidance is very systematic, the document also recognizes that each transfer situation is unique and therefore allows for flexibility in actual implementation. The transfer process involves multiple phases of evaluation and clearly demonstrates the importance of buy-in. Primary participants include ADOT District Engineers and local jurisdiction or tribal government directors or managers. There are also provisions for public involvement such as through hearings. The handbook suggests the use of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between state and local parties to set the stage for subsequent steps. The MOU would define the limits of the segment in question, justification for the transfer, an anticipated timeline, and roles and responsibilities ‒ including data collection and analysis ‒ for the remainder of the process. It is also at the point of developing the MOU that

41 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments MPOs/COGs are also informed so as to facilitate their transportation planning responsibilities. The handbook provides a template MOU. The process then goes through a series of data collection and evaluation steps that results in the development of preliminary feasibility evaluation, a route transfer report, and ultimately an inter- governmental agreement. Criteria used for analyzing the jurisdictional transfer option at each phase in the process are discussed in the following section. Figure 11 Transfer from the State Highway System to a Local or Tribal Government Source: ADOT. Route Transfer Handbook. 2012.   

42 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments Figure 12 Transfer from a Local or Tribal Government to State Highway System Source: ADOT. Route Transfer Handbook. 2012.  Route Transfer Evaluation Criteria Applied on a Case‐By‐Case Basis  PRE-PROCESS EVALUATION CHECKLIST For use before even entering the process, the Route Transfer Handbook provides a simple checklist with which to evaluate whether a route is a good candidate. Questions from the checklist address trip character (who uses a route, and for what types of travel), highway function (importance to statewide or regional connectivity), the influence of other projects on the network, and consideration of maintenance and operations and capabilities, as shown in Table 8.

43 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments Table 8 Initial Checklist Questions for Jurisdictional Transfers Consideration State to Local (Seeking “Yes” answers) Local to State (“Seeking Yes” answers) Trip Character  Does the route primarily serve local travel needs?  Are vehicles trips primarily local in nature, for shopping, local business, and recreation?  Does the route primarily serve statewide or regional travel needs?  Are vehicles trips mostly regional or statewide in nature? Highway Function  Is the route considered non-essential for statewide or regional system connectivity?  Is the route needed for statewide or regional system connectivity?  Do local or regional plans treat the highway as a statewide facility favoring mobility, as determined by highway classification and access management? New or Major Construction  Is the route affected by a new state highway that bypasses or duplicates the route?  -- Maintenance and Operations  Does a receiving agency (local or tribal jurisdiction) have the ability to maintain and operate the highway?  Are route maintenance requirements more efficiently provided by the state?  Source: Adapted from ADOT. Route Transfer Handbook. 2012.  FEASIBILITY EVALUATION The preliminary feasibility evaluation happens after an initial meeting between involved parties and the development of the MOU. It employs a more detailed list of evaluation questions to determine appropriateness for transfer. For each question, the handbook outlines a response and analysts are asked to determine whether each is “true”, “false,” or “neutral” with respect to the corridor. At the end of the evaluation, a preponderance of “True” responses mean the segment is a likely candidate for transfer. A sample of considerations addressed in this evaluation are shown in Figure 13. The evaluation criteria have also been implemented within an excel tool. The feasibility evaluation is in fact quite extensive, but nevertheless relies on questions stated in relatively straightforward language. While the guidebook outlines data that can be used to address these questions, the process requires qualitative judgment. The full set of categories addressed in the evaluation are:  Transfer objective  Right-of-way ownership status  Trip character (trip purpose, multimodal transportation needs/conditions)  Highway function (including consideration of continuity and connectivity, state highway system functionality, frontage roads, parallel routes, and new or major reconstruction affecting the segment)

44 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments  Land use  Access management (e.g., driveways/access points, access management features, intersection/interchange access, and frontage roads)  Future needs  Jurisdictional interest (expressed interest and desire for different standards of service by local governments)  Other non-statewide routes (addressing special designations such as evacuation of freight routes), and  Maintenance and operations (including potential for discontinuities affecting O&M, and ability and efficiency of O&M at each level of government). The framework tends to point locally-serving roads with greater levels of bike/pedestrian/transit service, and fewer access control measures toward a determination of more appropriate ownership by local governments. It recognizes the implications of transfers for operations and maintenance efficiencies, acknowledging that certain maintenance requirements may be more efficiently provided at a local level. It also addresses the possibility of benefits from having land use and transportation decisions within the same entity: Consolidation of government decisions for land use and access management decisions would provide greater efficiency, economic development potential, and community responsiveness. Figure 13 Route Transfer Considerations Source: ADOT. Route Transfer Handbook. 2012. 

45 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments If the segment passes the feasibility evaluation, the findings are then documented in a route transfer report that then provides the basis for subsequent negotiation processes. Planning Study Criteria ‒ System‐Wide Assessment of LVR  In the context of the 2017 planning study evaluation of LVR, ADOT evaluated 22 state routes for transfer potential by assessing the markets they serve and the types of access provided, as shown in Figure 14. Routes that provide access to facilities of regional or statewide importance, or that or are essential for regional system connectivity were more likely to be considered as warranting the State Highway designation. The process was guided by the statement that “In general, low-volume roads should not be designated as state highways unless they serve a specific state or national purpose within the transportation system.”27 This evaluation of transfer potential is particularly interesting from the perspective of right-sizing because it was undertaken alongside consideration of other potential “right-sizing”/cost-saving options including (a) changes to operations and maintenance policies, (b) consideration of road closure, and (c) consideration of the appropriateness of implementing design exceptions to achieve cost savings within a performance-based practical design framework. Figure 14 Low-Volume Roadway Characteristics Evaluated in 2017 Planning Study Source: Arizona DOT. Low Volume State Routes Study.  27 ADOT. Low Volume State Routes Study, 2017.

46 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments Implementation  Issues for Negotiation  The Route Transfer Guidebook presents significant discussion of issues likely to come up in a transfer negotiation process. A summary of these considerations can be found in Table 9. Aspects of particular interest from the perspective of right-sizing have been underlined and italicized below. Table 9 Transfer Negotiation Issues Issue Summary Ownership Rights to ownership are complex. The process must determine the conditions under which the current road owner is legally empowered to transfer road rights-of-way to another owner. Access Control The handbook states that access control is a public asset with value in the negotiation process and that “Responsibility for access control needs to be explicitly addressed in the route transfer agreements.” For transfers to local governments, ADOT has to determine its willingness to relinquish responsibility for access control, and the Handbook suggests that this willingness has a value that should be considered in financial negotiations. Existing Permits, Encumbrances, and Agreements These may affect future development potential and therefore must be disclosed. “Encumbrances on the rights-of-way, such as utility easements, might also be a negotiation issue for jurisdictional transfers.” Federal Interest There are regulations governing the treatment of rights-of-way originally acquired using Federal-aid Highway Program Funds. Roadway Condition and Maintenance To facilitate negotiation requires a clear understanding of roadway condition and maintenance, as it directly affects the maintenance burden being transferred. The Handbook recommends that an estimated annual maintenance costs be included in Route Transfer Report used in the negotiation process. Roadway Improvements and Design Standards “A transfer of responsibilities should not leave the accepting jurisdiction in a position of significant liability.” Therefore, the segment should be reviewed for standards compliance and an estimate developed to bring the road up to standards. Safety is a key consideration in this process. Rail Crossings “The terms and transferability of existing railroad agreements and licenses should be a consideration for any jurisdiction considering accepting responsibilities for a road with railroad crossings. A meeting should be held with the railroad(s) and parties to the jurisdictional transfer to determine the conditions for transferring the agreements and licenses.” Route Signage For users of the system, road signage is important for avoiding confusion, and must be sorted out as part of a transfer. Traffic Signals and Lighting Maintenance and operational responsibilities for traffic signals, lighting, and pedestrian facilities must be sorted out as part of a transfer. In some cases, transfers may even be limited to things like pedestrian facilities rather than a whole roadway. This negotiation is also important because it addresses underlying “philosophical issues” or differences that may exist between the state and locals ‒ e.g., whether signals are intended to ensure smooth throughput or to reduce speeds and thereby “increase safety or attract attention to adjacent development.” Landscaping Similar to the above, ADOT and local jurisdictional may have different visions for landscaping in terms of purpose, safety, cost, and aesthetics. These have to be sorted out alongside responsibilities. Transfer Time Frames Here it is important to define realistic expectations and intermediate milestones. These can be defined early on in the MOU to keep the process moving.

47 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments Post Transfer Agency Responsibilities “The most critical post-transfer responsibilities are those associated with safety, such as signal operations, signing, striping, lighting, emergency response, and law enforcement. Other post-transfer responsibilities will include items such as roadway and landscape maintenance, utility payments, capital improvements, access permitting, and completing the legal and administrative aspects of the transfer. These post-transfer responsibilities should be clearly delineated in the transfer agreements and follow-up meetings should be conducted periodically with all participating agencies to assess performance and address any unanticipated consequences of the transfer.” Financial Considerations The Handbook suggests a benefit-cost analysis of any elements that can be quantified, within a timeframe such as 20 years. Suggests elements for consideration include:  Right-of-way value  Improvements / equipment value  Access control value  Revenue streams and anticipated grants  Required capital investments  Required maintenance and operating costs  Law enforcement and liability costs “In an ideal transfer, the benefits to each party to the transfer would be greater than their respective costs.” The Handbook also suggests consideration of hard to quantify outcomes: “For example, a local agency may realize benefits associated with local control of the roadway such as enhancing economic development potential for adjacent properties and generating additional property and sales taxes. In addition, local control may allow for temporary road closures for special events, enhanced aesthetic treatments, and/or higher levels of maintenance that all benefit the community.” Source: Based on material included in the ADOT Route Transfer Handbook (2012). All quotes directly from the  Handbook.  Program‐Level Planning for Right‐Sizing Via Jurisdictional Transfer  With the completion of the Low Volume Routes (LVR) Study, ADOT is now determining on a route by route basis, how to move forward with some of the LVR recommendations based on the Route Transfer Handbook guidance. Lessons Learned and Conclusions for Right‐Sizing  The following observations can be made based on the findings of this case example:  ADOT’s handbook is an example of a very well-defined process that is nevertheless cognizant of the need to be flexible. Although supported by data, the process depends on judgment and works to ensure key factors are accounted for through the use of checklists and specific guidance on potential issues to anticipate.  ADOT’s study of low-volume roads emphasizes that lower-volume facilities may represent a sort of “frontline” of the right-sizing conversation. Their approach is also notable

48 White Papers for Right-Sizing Transportation Investments because it incorporates consideration of transfer in the context of other cost-saving or right-sizing options.  ADOT benefits from clear policy guidance from its State Transportation Board regarding the intended nature of the state highway system, as well as the need for continual evolution of the road network in response to changing usage patterns and development trends.  Also, relevant to right-sizing is the specific confluence of land use and transportation considerations in ADOT’s approach to jurisdictional transfer. ADOT recognizes that there can be benefits ‒ in terms of efficiency, economic development, and responsiveness to community needs ‒ from having only one entity control both a road and the surrounding development environment.  Finally, ADOTs guidance on financial considerations for negotiation outlines a more complete set of factors than just a transfer of operating and maintenance burdens between agencies. This broader view of potential benefits and costs is important to the question of right-sizing and whether and how to determine if all parties emerge from a transfer with net positive outcomes.