Skip to contentU.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration FHWA HomeFeedback
Planning
FHWA > HEP > Planning > Statewide
Previous Home

Appendix A

Legislation and Regulations

(Emphasis Added)

Legislation

23 USC 134 (g) (2) [Metropolitan] Long-range transportation plan.-- A long-range transportation plan under this section shall be in a form that the Secretary determines to be appropriate and shall contain, at a minimum, the following:

(B) A financial plan that demonstrates how the adopted long- range transportation plan can be implemented, indicates resources from public and private sources that are reasonably expected to be made available to carry out the plan, and recommends any additional financing strategies for needed projects and programs. The financial plan may include, for illustrative purposes, additional projects that would be included in the adopted long-range transportation plan if reasonable additional resources beyond those identified in the financial plan were available. For the purpose of developing the long-range transportation plan, the metropolitan planning organization and State shall cooperatively develop estimates of funds that will be available to support plan implementation.

23 USC 134 (h) (1) Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program.--

(C) Funding estimates.--For the purpose of developing the transportation improvement program, the metropolitan planning organization, public transit agency, and State shall cooperatively develop estimates of funds that are reasonably expected to be available to support program implementation.

23 USC 134 (h) (2) Metropolitan TIP: Contents.--The transportation improvement program shall include--

(A) a priority list of proposed federally supported projects and strategies to be carried out within each 3-year period after the initial adoption of the transportation improvement program; and

(B) a financial plan that --

(i) demonstrates how the transportation improvement program can be implemented;

(ii) indicates resources from public and private sources that are reasonably expected to be available to carry out the program;

(iii) identifies innovative financing techniques to finance projects, programs, and strategies; and

(iv) may include, for illustrative purposes, additional projects that would be included in the approved transportation improvement program if reasonable additional resources beyond those identified in the financial plan were available.

23 USC 135 (e) [Statewide] Long-Range Transportation Plan.

(4) Financial plan.--The long-range transportation plan may include a financial plan that demonstrates how the adopted long-range transportation plan can be implemented, indicates resources from public and private sources that are reasonably expected to be made available to carry out the plan, and recommends any additional financing strategies for needed projects and programs. The financial plan may include, for illustrative purposes, additional projects that would be included in the adopted transportation plan if reasonable addition al resources beyond those identified in the financial plan were available.

23 USC 135 (f) (2) State Transportation Improvement Program.-- Include projects. --

(E) Financial plan.--The transportation improvement program may include a financial plan that demonstrates how the approved transportation improvement program can be implemented, indicates resources from public and private sources that are reasonably expected to be made available to carry out the plan, and recommends any additional financing strategies for needed projects and programs. The financial plan may include, for illustrative purposes, additional projects that would be included in the adopted transportation plan if reasonable additional resources beyond those identified in the financial plan were available.

Regulations

23 CFR §450.214 (b) (6) Statewide transportation plan. The plan shall reference, summarize or contain information on the availability of financial and other resources needed to carry out the plan.

23 CFR §450.216 (a) (5) Statewide transportation improvement program (STIP). In addition, the STIP shall be financially constrained by year and include sufficient financial information to demonstrate which projects are to be implemented using current revenues and which projects are to be implemented using proposed revenue sources while the system as a whole is being adequately operated and maintained. In nonattainment and maintenance areas, projects included in the first two years of the current STIP/TIP shall be limited to those for which funds are available or committed. In the case of proposed funding sources, strategies for ensuring their availability shall be identified;

23 CFR §450.322 (b) (11) Metropolitan transportation planning process: Transportation plan. In addition, the plan shall include a financial plan that demonstrates the consistency of proposed transportation investments with already available and projected sources of revenue. The financial plan shall compare the estimated revenue from existing and proposed funding sources that can reasonably be expected to be available for transportation uses, and the estimated costs of constructing, maintaining and operating the total (existing plus planned) transportation system over the period of the plan. The estimated revenue by existing revenue source (local, State, and Federal and private) available for transportation projects shall be determined and any shortfalls identified. Proposed new revenues and/or revenue sources to cover shortfalls shall be identified, including strategies for ensuring their availability for proposed investments. Existing and proposed revenues shall cover all forecasted capital, operating, and maintenance costs. All cost and revenue projections shall be based on the data reflecting the existing situation and historical trends. For nonattainment and maintenance areas, the financial plan shall address the specific financial strategies required to ensure the implementation of projects and programs to reach air quality compliance.

23 CFR §450.324 (e) Transportation improvement program: General. The TIP shall be financially constrained by year and include a financial plan that demonstrates which projects can be implemented using current revenue sources and which projects are to be implemented using proposed revenue sources (while the existing transportation system is being adequately operated and maintained). The financial plan shall be developed by the MPO in cooperation with the State and the transit operator. The State and the transit operator must provide MPOs with estimates of available Federal and State funds which the MPOs shall utilize in developing financial plans. It is expected that the State would develop this information as part of the STIP development process and that the estimates would be refined through this process. Only projects for which construction and operating funds can reasonably be expected to be available may be included. In the case of new funding sources, strategies for ensuring their availability shall be identified. In developing the financial analysis, the MPO shall take into account all projects and strategies funded under title 23, U.S.C., and the Federal Transit Act, other Federal funds, local sources, State assistance, and private participation. In nonattainment and maintenance areas, projects included for the first two years of the current TIP shall be limited to those for which funds are available or committed.

Appendix B

State Summaries of Key Points from TRB Peer Exchange Report

TRB Peer Exchange report (PDF, 892KB)

Alaska

  1. Investment Analysis is part of the STP.
    1. Multi-modal analysis compares needs to revenues.
    2. Focus on operations and maintenance.
  2. Fiscal constraint based on
    1. Estimates of TEA-21 Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) forecasts and past funding.
    2. Program targets match amount apportioned to amount expected.
    3. Projects are scheduled to match annual funding.
    4. Cumulative project funding is adjusted by funding category (e.g., STP, IM, NHS, CMAQ, etc.).
  3. Current fiscal/economic environment does not play a particularly important role. Long-range planning uses forecasts of economic conditions, population, and other parameters that affect demand for transportation.

California

  1. According to Caltrans, it appreciates the value of fiscal constraint and is interested in encouraging and incorporating this approach in future statewide and metropolitan plans and programs.
  2. Financial planning is a major component of and drives the transportation planning process.
  3. The State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) uses estimates of local and federal funds.
    1. The STIP incorporates regional TIPs programmed by the 43 regions and the interregional TIP programmed by the state.
      1. Regional and interregional TIPs are based on approved multimodal plans.
    2. The STP is a policy plan that advocates flexibility of expenditures to allow jurisdictions to identify and pursue transportation challenges.
    3. To assure fiscal constraint, the STIP is limited to projects nominated in the regional and interregional TIPs and is programmed up to estimated fund limits.
    4. The fiscal/economic environment is considered in planning and programming.
    5. Cost-effectiveness is a key performance measure applied at project levels.
      1. Currently investigating use to evaluate alternatives.

Florida

  1. The sate has a range of federal, state, and local revenue sources for funding transportation improvement.
    1. Federal and sate funds (State Transportation Trust Fund) are reflected in the STP, STIP, Resource Plan and Work Program.
    2. Local funds go into the local trust group, and are distributed to local agencies to develop their capital improvement programs.
  2. Within the statewide planning process, financial planning has two components: Forecasting and Use of Funds.
    1. Forecast Revenue -ten-year Finance Plan (constrains five-year Work Program, ten-year program, and the Resource Plan). This forecast is updated twice annually.
    2. Forecast Revenue - STP. The state develops the STP financial numbers by extrapolating from the Finance Plan numbers for the fifteen to twenty-year period using forecasted growth rate.
    3. Use of Funds - State law requires the work program to meet state goals and policy as outlined in the STP.
  3. State law requires that the five-year work program be constrained to available funding and be consistent with the STP policies and goals.
    1. Documentation on financial planning issues is in the STP, Program, Resource Plan, modal plan, and related studies. The Program and Resource Plan and financial planning process are reviewed and analyzed annually by the executive management.
  4. The STIP is the subset of the federally funded five-year Work Program incorporating TIPs from Florida's 25 MPOs and federally funded rural projects.
    1. Funding allocation is distributed by:
      1. Program and geographic district; and
      2. Intrastate Highway system, bridges, resurfacing, maintenance, public transit, airports, etc.
  5. STIP Fiscal Constraint
    1. The state gives local agencies commitment authority in the work program and resource plan for full funding of projects over a multi-year period.
    2. Authority for commitment is matched to the short-term Cash Forecast and the Finance Plan.
  6. A committee (revenue estimating conference) develops the revenue forecasts. The State DOT, Governor's Office, Office of Economic and Demographic Research, and House/Senate staff are represented on the conference, which usually meets before and after the legislative session.

Maryland

  1. One of the goals of the STP is "funding our transportation future."
    1. Objective is to secure adequate resources to build, operate, and maintain a high quality transportation system.
  2. Funding availability is determined through a series of revenue and operating cost projections based on a "moderate growth" scenario for the national economy.
  3. The state has the authority to use innovative financing to supplement and support its cash flow.
    1. Examples: Certificate of Participation, Rental Car Facility Charges, and Safe Harbor Leases.
  4. The STP provides a twenty-year forecast of transportation needs based on the financial resources available (constrained needs). The Commission on Transportation Investment examines the data and the funding gap, and recommends the future annual levels of capital investment. These recommendations become the State's financial benchmarks.
  5. The STIP and the projects in it are shown on a cash-flow basis, by year and by federal funding categories.
  6. The Maryland Transportation Plan (MTP) is a statewide policy document with a twenty-year horizon that includes a number of specific long-range improvement projects. (Last update 2002)
  7. Priorities in the MTP form the basis for the projects submitted by the state to include in the LRPs developed by Baltimore and other metropolitan area MPOs.
  8. In current economic downturn, major projects in the Baltimore metropolitan area long-range plan (LRP) were evaluated to determine if they were affordable within the plan's timeframe. For the statewide plan, the Office of Finance took into account current economic conditions and forecasts of statewide revenues through the Plan's time horizon. These projected revenues shortfalls are then allocated to unfunded needs of the various regions.
  9. The annual Attainment Report on Transportation System Performance provides a status update on the state\'s progress toward meeting the goals and objectives in the MTP.
  10. Performance measures used in the Plan include:
    1. Revenues from innovative sources obtained by the state and;
    2. Differences between targeted levels of funding needed to sustain the system and actual funding levels.
  11. Additional Performance Measure: Cost Effectiveness. Challenge is applying this measure:
    1. To compare costs per unit across modes;
    2. When some goals such as safety or increasing mode splits for non-motorized modes might not be adequately evaluated using costs and benefits;
    3. By project or capital program.

Massachusetts

  1. Two offices are responsible for financial planning: the Capital Expenditure and Programming Office (CEPO) and the Bureau of Transportation Planning and Development (MassHighway Planning).
  2. STIP financial planning
    1. Starts with federal projections from FHWA and state financial projections from CEPO.
    2. During a series of meetings involving the CEPO, the Chief Engineer, and Highway Engineering division staff, budget targets are set for:
      1. Central/Artery Tunnel Project
      2. Statewide needs including interstate highways, capital maintenance and planning, and
      3. Regional MPO budgets.
    3. The MPO budgets are distributed by a formula developed by the Massachusetts Association of Regional Planning Agencies and adopted by the State.
    4. A series of consultation meetings with Massachusetts Association of Regional Planning Agencies is held to discuss the proposed budgets.
      1. FHWA participates in the financial consultation between the state and the MPOs, and usually sends representatives to MPO meetings across the state.
    5. Once budgets are agreed upon, the state releases the budgets as MPO "targets" to be used in developing metropolitan area TIPs.
    6. When there is uncertainty about specific year-to-year funding availability projections, the state advises the MPOs to assume level funding.
  3. The State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) is a compilation of thirteen regional TIPs and is for a five-year program.
  4. In the STIP fiscal constraint includes a CEPO-prepared comprehensive breakdown of funding assumptions, projections, and allocations.
  5. FHWA and FTA review the STIP financial analysis/constraint (described above) determination in the draft STIP each September, and ensure that it meets fiscal constraint requirements.
  6. The state is required to spend a minimum of $400 million annually on road and bridge construction, excluding the Central Artery/Tunnel Project, under an agreement between the state and the MPOs.
  7. Performance measures:
    1. Minimum expenditure requirement is $400 million annually.
    2. Status of projects on the first year of the current TIP
      1. Advertised for construction;
      2. Reasonable geographic equity in the distribution of advertised projects.
    3. Advertised amounts are based on programmed amounts.

Michigan

  1. The state monitors travel and economic trends that impact transportation revenues used in the LRPs and STIP.
    1. Financial planning in the Statewide Long Range Plan (SLRP) is based on revenue trends and projections compared to needs based on long term goals.
    2. The MPO Long Range Plans are based on revenue estimates of current funding levels as shown in the TIPs and projected over a twenty-year period.
  2. The state has a Five-Year Road and Bridge Program
    1. The program is a rolling five-year program for state roads only; it is updated annually by adding and deleting a year to the program.
    2. The projects in the five-year program provide the basis for the three-year trunkline program in the STIP and the MPO TIPs. Development of the five-year program provides MPOs with adequate notice to help coordinate their three-year TIPs.
    3. The Program is easier to understand and more useful as a communications tool for the public than the STIP.
    4. The state uses the collaborative process to develop the five-year Program; process includes extensive MPO, Rural Task Force, and general public involvement.
    5. The state includes a precise analysis of program funding levels.
  3. STIP/TIP financial planning:
    1. The state program is based on federal aid with obligation limitations plus estimated state gas tax revenue.
    2. State programs are fiscally constrained at the state level; the projects that take place within MPO boundaries become part of the metropolitan area TIPs.
    3. Local programs are based on authorized levels of federal aid plus local match.
      1. Local funding and local federal aid are added to the resources that will be available to finance programs contained in the TIPs.
    4. d. Revenue for projects on the state level system is not sub-allocated by MPO but is based on the state trunkline projects selected for that area.
  4. TIP fiscal constraint requirement has a major impact on project selection and scheduling.
  5. Documentation is at different levels of detail, consistent with the information available (five-year program, MPO LRP, STIP/TIP).
  6. The state Long Range Plan is primarily a policy document that identifies high priority corridors and some high profile projects but is not fiscally constrained. It includes:
    1. Long term objectives;
    2. Strategies to achieve those objectives; and
    3. Future revenue for addressing long term needs and identifying new sources and methods for generating that revenue.
  7. STIP/TIP fiscal constraint demonstration is a detailed comparison of "New Resources" compared to "New Commitments."
    1. "New Resources" are the estimated annual stream of federal and non-federal revenue to state or local programs.
      1. "New Resources" does not represent a budget. It is a benchmark for the purpose of demonstrating fiscal constraint.
    2. "New Commitments" are the total cost of project phases that will be started (funds obligated) during the year and funded by those programs.
    3. This comparison is documented through a series of financial tables in the metropolitan area TIPs that are linked to non-MPO area tables and statewide summary tables in the STIP report.
    4. The method of fiscal constraint appears to be rigorous but is also time consuming.
    5. The state estimates resources available for the non-MPO areas of the state and includes them in the STIP along with a listing of non-MPO trunkline and rural local projects.
    6. State provides MPOs with funding level estimates from direct federal programs, state trunkline projects, and associated funds, and state allocations of federal and state funds. The MPO provides estimates for local sources of funds such as dedicated tax revenues, local general fund obligations, and other sources.
    7. The state estimates revenue for statewide grant programs such as Enhancements based on the best available information and includes in the TIPs as General Program Accounts (GPAs).
    8. When resources exceed or equal commitments, the program is clearly constrained.
    9. Although new commitments may exceed new resources, it is still possible for the program to be constrained (e.g., when a project is authorized for advance construct in one year and converted in a future year that has reduced new commitments). Detailed explanation must be presented if this occurs.
    10. The comparison of New Resources and New Commitments establishes a "gateway" into the STIP or TIP through which every project must pass once.
    11. This approach allows the state to maintain the listing of new STIP/TIP projects and provides a consistent, connected, and understandable view of the program across all TIPs and the STIP.
  8. Funding assumptions concerning future available revenue are adjusted based on current economic status. Program categories are allocated estimated revenue that is referred to as the program "template."
    1. Program categories are linked to program goals and performance measures.
    2. The template controls programming of projects, both short- and long-term.
    3. Budget fluctuations trigger template changes, which may or may not trigger program changes, depending on their size and certainty.
    4. State change short-range revenue forecasts much more frequently than longer-range revenue forecasts.
  9. The five-year Road and Bridge Program is constrained to a revenue estimate with clearly documented assumptions.
  10. Fluctuations in revenue affect the schedule of program delivery. The state will delay projects rather than reconfiguring the programs or eliminating projects.
    1. State has developed a cash flow model to track project reimbursements over multi-year periods, use of Advance Construction financing, use of bonding, and changes in estimated revenue.
  11. This information is compared with programmed expenditures, conversion of Advance Construction, and payment of debt service to assess the overall financial condition of the program as expressed as a projected end-of-year cash balance.
    1. The state uses a performance measure that determines whether the state is using all available obligation authority each year.
    2. The state reviews the percentage of projects listed as new commitments for the fiscal year compared to the percentage that are obligated in that year.
      1. The state also continuously monitors the local agency balances to determine the amount of authorized federal aid that has been obligated, and to track whether local programs are delivered as promised in the TIPs.
      2. With the cash flow model and other financial monitoring tools, the state believes it has sufficient financial control to ensure prudent and responsible budgeting and programming.
    3. According to the state, the STIP requirements for fiscal constraint impose additional layers of analysis that increase administrative costs without any corresponding increase in financial accountability.

Minnesota

  1. Moving Minnesota 2003 is a policy document that describes types and levels of funding typically available statewide.
    1. Planning guidance provides a twenty-year financial/funding forecast for MN/DOT district plans.
    2. These plans contain performance scenarios that show a fiscally constrained future based on recent funding trends.
  2. STIP fiscal constraint -- A funding target is developed for each district for estimates of state and federal funds for the three-year period of the STIP.
    1. The metropolitan areas use a portion of statewide funds based on system size and usage to develop TIPs.
    2. Area TIPs are then integrated into the STIP.
  3. The forecasted funding targets for the STIP are based on trend analysis updated annually.
  4. Current revenue forecasts have been lowered due to the current economic environment.
  5. Long-range revenue projections are based on a quantitative analysis of long-term revenue trends that captures revenue changes due to political and economic events.
  6. All long-range performance targets or goals are based on a scenario of reasonable and achievable funding.
  7. Goals and performance targets are based on expert knowledge and understanding of what could be achieved under a "reasonable but optimistic" future funding scenario.
  8. Projected performance is based on recent funding history.

Ohio

  1. The state established a "funds management committee" that determines long and short-term funding allocations to districts and major program areas.
    1. Project Selection factors
      1. Funding projections;
      2. Quantitative performance measures of existing and projected conditions (such as bridge and pavement conditions); and
      3. Funding estimates needed to address quantitative goals based on performance measures for each program area and condition.
    2. Representatives are from the Central Office including the Division of Planning, Finance, Construction, Pavements, Major Bridges, etc.
  2. The state regularly develops and updates its financial projections, which are documented in the statewide plan and the funds management process.
  3. STIP Fiscal Constraint -- All programs and funding sources are reviewed for fiscal constraint prior to being included in the STIP.
    1. STIP amendments can be no more frequent than quarterly.
    2. Planning staff review and make quarterly adjustments as needed to maintain the financially constraint of the STIP.
  4. With reduced funding, the state will take the first reduction from its capacity-adding program, while continuing to fund its maintenance and safety programs as priorities.
  5. All performance measures are linked to the financial base.
    1. The state sets financial and performance goals are set to be achievable based on the amount of funding realistically available.

Texas

  1. The current Statewide Long Range Plan (SLRP), the first produced post-ISTEA, did not address fiscal constraint.
    1. The SLRP was basically a policy document.
    2. It addressed the considerable need of all modes of transportation without fiscal constraint.
  2. A second generation Statewide Plan is currently in progress but will not address fiscal constraint since individual projects costs will not be identified.
    1. The SLRP will discuss funding options and innovative finance issues, but will not contain project specific funding commitments.
  3. The State addresses financial planning through its Unified Transportation Program (UTP). This planning and programming process is project specific and fiscally constrained.
    1. The state is currently conducting a comprehensive revised process to revise the UTP.
    2. The new process under development will include planning for a longer time period.
  4. The state anticipates that the 2004-2006 STIP will link to the UTP process, which is fiscally constrained and specify projects for a longer planning period.
  5. Performance measures are not currently used in preparation of the Statewide Plan.

Washington

  1. The statewide planning process identifies system deficiencies and solutions to those deficiencies.
    1. Prior to 2002, the Transportation Commission balanced projected revenues against proposed solutions (projects), which resulted in a fiscally constrained project list.
  2. Washington's Transportation Plan (WTP) is a multimodal plan and addresses all transportation system needs.
    1. The current 2003-2022 update of the WTP no longer constrains the list of needs, nor does it document that portion of the financial planning process.
      1. This provides flexibility in programming
      2. It also avoids difficult "trade-off" decisions for future years.
      3. Projections of current available revenues will fall short of the amount necessary to satisfy the twenty-year list of needs.
      4. The Transportation Commission gives final approval to the statewide plan.
    2. The WTP contains:
      1. An overview of the current statewide transportation system conditions;
      2. An assessment of the transportation investment needs for the next twenty years;
      3. A comparison of the public/private costs of transportation;
      4. A discussion of costs associated with transportation in the state; and
      5. Major sources of transportation revenue that usually contribute to state funding.
  3. State law also requires WSDOT to submit a six-year expenditure plan, balanced by available revenue, when submitting their biennial budgets.
  4. WSDOT's internal process to set priorities for its program is used to develop the six-year plan. The criteria considered in the state highway system priority programming includes:
    1. The Highway Improvement program:
      1. Use of benefit/cost analysis.
      2. Traffic congestion;
      3. Heavily traveled corridors;
      4. Synchronization with other transportation projects; and
    2. The Highway Preservation program:
      1. Life-cycle cost analysis;
      2. Traffic volume;
      3. Subgrade soil conditions;
      4. Environmental and weather conditions;
      5. Materials available; and
      6. Construction factors.
  5. The Washington State Ferry system and the state Intercity Passenger Rail program follow a priority programming process.
  6. STIP Documentation
    1. WSDOT's role is to compile the MPOs' TIPs and forward them to the Governor and FHWA for successive approvals.
    2. Washington State does not use the STIP process as a budget tool to fiscally constrain transportation funding. This is considered to be a "bottoms up" approach and is consistent with the state Growth Management Act (GMA).
    3. MPOs and rural Washington counties are annually allocated federal funds for different "colors of money" -- money for different types of programs.
      1. The MPOs allocate these funds to the local agencies through a regional competitive process or other processes.
      2. The MPOs and rural counties fiscally constrain their TIPs to the state's estimates of funding targets.
    4. WSDOT checks the submitted TIP totals and compares the "carry-forward dollars" of unobligated dollars from previous years by program against:
      1. Current allocations of the MPOs and rural counties; and
      2. The second and third years estimated funding allocation.
    5. This analysis ensures current and planned projects do not create an "over programming" of available funds.
    6. The MPO or rural county is notified if there appears to be over-programming to allow revisions.
  7. Highway System Plan (HSP) is updated approximately every two years.
    1. Current fiscal and economic environmental factors are taken into consideration in comparing the identified system list of deficiencies and available revenue, and is recalibrated which projects are feasible.
  8. In 2000 a taxpayer revolt led to the loss of approximately $350 million per year in transportation tax revenue.
    1. This tax revenue loss and the current recession have forced economic belt tightening.
    2. The resulting revenue shortfall required an immediate reexamination of the programs and projects previously funded through the lost revenue.
  9. The current environment has focused attention on the preservation and maintenance of the present infrastructure.
    1. Short-term capacity improvements have focused on some congestion relief projects through operational efficiencies.
    2. Long-range planning and programming have become more problematic as the state falls further behind the anticipated needs to meet travel growth.
      1. To some political and business leaders, the current outlook is already beginning to affect the prospects for future growth and economic development.
  10. In 2002, the Legislature passed legislation that authorizes creation of a Regional Transportation Investment District (RTID) in the Central Puget Sound Region.
    1. The RTID legislation provided funding mechanisms for implementing a regional transportation investment plan (subject to a public vote) for regional transportation projects.
    2. Projects may include improvements to a highway of statewide significance that adds new HOV or other lanes, park-and-ride lots, vans for vanpools, buses, or other capital projects.
    3. Local roads leading to new highways are also eligible for revenue if certain conditions are met.
    4. The state is studying congestion pricing and tolls to include in the long-range planning process.
  11. Although the state does not currently have specific, financially based performance measures, it uses the criteria describe above in item 4.
  12. The Secretary of Transportation and the Transportation Commission's Benchmark Committee have begun to define and establish statewide benchmarks.
    1. Legislation passed in 2002 defines several policy goals for the operation of, performance of, and investment in the state's transportation system.
    2. The policy goals that serve as the basis of "detailed and measurable performance benchmarks" are to be established by the Transportation Commission.
  13. Two of the financially based topics that have not yet been addressed in depth and present significant challenges are:
    1. Administrative costs as a percentage of transportation spending.
    2. Median cost per vehicle revenue hour of public transit agencies.

Wisconsin

  1. The SLRP tries to identify all major cost components of statewide transportation and compares them to estimates of future revenues.
    1. Components include capital and operating expenditures for rail passenger and transit and improvement needs for highways.
    2. Costs for highway maintenance and operations have not been included in past plans, but will be included in the next generation of plans.
    3. Wisconsin's statewide plans are considered fiscally constrained to reasonably achievable levels.
    4. The SLRP shows the cost of recommendations, which it compares to expected revenue.
    5. In other plans the state recommends possible revenue-raising mechanisms that might fill funding gaps.
  2. Fiscally constrained STIP -- All projects show funding sources. The totals for each source are limited by what is available on a statewide basis or for specific MPOs.
  3. The current financial environment has little impact on long-range plans.
    1. The state assumes that the economic downturn will be of limited duration.
    2. The STIP responds to expected fiscal impacts.
      1. The state stretches projects out or delays them to accommodate less-than expected revenues.
  4. Comparison between costs and revenues is the only direct financial performance measure.
    1. Finances influence the thresholds the state uses for pavement and congestion.

Appendix C

List of Participants
Domestic Scan on Financial Planning
Meeting 1, Salem, Oregon
October 29, 2002

Don Amon
Donald.C.Aman@ODOT.State.OR.US
ODOT- Highway Finance Office
355 Capitol St, NE
Salem, OR 97301-3872

Scott Bassett
Oregon Department if Transportation
355 Capitol St, NE
Salem, OR 97301-3872

Jerri Bohard
Jerri.L.Bohard@odot.state.or.us
Oregon Department of Transportation
555 13th Street, NE, Suite 2
Salem, OR 97301-4178

Carolyn Gassaway
Carolyn.h.Gassaway@dot.state.or.us
Oregon Department of Transportation
Salem, OR 97301-3744

Bob Gorman
Robert.Gorman@fhwa.dot.gov
FHWA HQ, HEPS-10
400 7th St., SW Room 3301
Washington, DC 20590

Robert Hofstad
Bob.hofstad@dot.state.mn.us
Office of Investment Management
Minnesota Department of Transportation
395 John Ireland Boulevard MS 440
St. Paul, MN 55155

Kim Hoovestol
Kim.hoovestol@fhwa.dot.gov
FHWA - Oregon Division
530 Center St., Ste 100
Salem, OR 91301-3744

Lorrie Lau
Lorrie.Lau@fhwa.dot.gov
FHWA/Western Resource Center
201 Mission St., Suite 2100
San Francisco, CA 94105

William Lyons
Lyons@volpe.dot.gov
USDOT/Volpe Center
Cambridge, MA 02142

Tim McDowell
Tim.mcdowell@dot.state.wy.us
Wyoming Department of Transportation
5300 Bishop Blvd
Cheyenne, WY 82009-3340

Fred Patron
fred.patron@fhwa.dot.gov
FHWA - Oregon Division
530 Center St., Suite 100
Salem, OR 97301-3744

Jack Svadlenak
John.R.Svadlenak@state.or.us
Policy Section
Oregon Department of Transportation
555 13th St, NE, Suite 2
Salem, OR 97301

Jill Vosper
Jill.a.Vosper@odot.state.or.us
ODOT Hwy. Finance Office
355 Capitol St. NE
Salem, OR

Mark Wills
Oregon Department of Transportation
355 Capitol St, NE
Salem, OR 97301-3872

Meeting 2, Phoenix, Arizona
October 30, 2002

Arnold Burnham
abrnham@dot.state.az.us
ADOT-TPD
206S 17th Ave., 320B
Phoenix, AZ 85007

Dale Buskirk
dbuskirk@dot.state.az.us
ADOT
206S 17th Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85007

Carolyn Gassaway
Carolyn.h.Gassaway@dot.state.or.us
Oregon Department of Transportation
Mill Creek Office Building
555 13th Street, NE, Suite 2
Salem, OR 97301-4178

Bob Gorman
Robert.Gorman@fhwa.dot.gov
FHWA HQ, HEPS-10
400 7th St., SW RM 3301
Washington, DC 20590

Robert Hofstad
Bob.hofstad@dot.state.mn.us
Office of Investment Management
Minnesota Department of Transportation
395 John Ireland Boulevard MS 440
St. Paul, MN 55155

Lorrie Lau
Lorrie.Lau@fhwa.dot.gov
FHWA/Western Resource Center
201 Mission St., Suite 2100
San Francisco, CA 94105

William Lyons
Lyons@volpe.dot.gov
USDOT Volpe Center
55 Broadway
Cambridge, MA 02142

Tim McDowell
Tim.mcdowell@dot.state.wy.us
Wyoming Department of Transportation
5300 Bishop Blvd
Cheyenne, WY 82009-3340

Dennis Mittlelstedt
dennis.mittelstedt@fhwa.dot.gov
FHWA - Arizona division
400 East Van Buren, Room 410
Phoenix, AZ 85004

Thom Noss
TNOSS@dot.state.az.us
ADOT-FMS
206 S. 17th Ave., 205B
Phoenix, AZ 85007

Fred Patron
fred.patron@fhwa.dot.gov
FHWA - Oregon Division
530 Center St., Suite 100
Salem, OR 97301-3744

Ed Stillings
ed.stillings@fhwa.dot.gov
FHWA - Arizona Division
400 East Van Buren, Room 410
Phoenix, AZ 85004

Vicki Tsatsumida
Vicki.Tsatsumida@fhwa.dot.gov
FHWA - Arizona Division
400 East Van Buren, Room 410
Phoenix, AZ 85004

Meeting 3, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
November 26, 2002

Bob Gorman
Robert.Gorman@fhwa.dot.gov
FHWA HQ, HEPS-10
400 7th St., SW Room 3301
Washington, DC 20590

Mike Herron
mike.herron@fhwa.dot.gov
FHWA - PA Division
228 Walnut Street, 5th Fl
Harrisburg, PA 17101

Robert Hofstad
Bob.hofstad@dot.state.mn.us
Office of Investment Management
Minnesota Department of Transportation
395 John Ireland Boulevard MS 440
St. Paul, MN 55155

Lorrie Lau
Lorrie.Lau@fhwa.dot.gov
FHWA/Western Resource Center
201 Mission St., Suite 2100
San Francisco, CA 94105

Dennis Lebo
dlebo@state.pa.us
Chief, Program Development
400 North Street, 6th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17120

Keith Lynch
keith.lynch@fhwa.dot.gov
FTA - Region III
1760 Market Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19103

William Lyons
Lyons@volpe.dot.gov
USDOT/Volpe Center
55 Broadway
Cambridge, MA 02142


Diane Myers-Krug, AICP
TCRPC/HATS
112 Market Street, 2nd Fl
Harrisburg, PA 17101

Walt Panko
wpanko@state.pa.us
Program Center
PENNDOT
400 North Street, 6th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17120

Fred Patron
fred.patron@fhwa.dot.gov
FHWA - Oregon Division
530 Center St., Suite 100
Salem, OR 97301-3744

Lou Schultz
loschultz@state.pa.us
Director, Program Development & Management
PENNDOT
400 North Street, 6th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17120

Jim Smedley
jsmedley@state.pa.us
PENNDOT
400 North Street, 6th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17120

Matt Smoker
Matt.smoker@fhwa.dot.gov
FHWA - PA Division
228 Walnut Street, 5th Fl
Harrisburg, PA 17101

Spencer Steavens
steavens@fhwa.dot.gov
FHWA - PA Division
228 Walnut Street, 5th Fl
Harrisburg, PA 17101

James W. Szymborski, AICP
Tri-County Regional Planning Commission
Harrisburg MPO
112 Market Street, 2nd Fl
Harrisburg, PA 17101

Joe Werning
werning@fhwa.dot.gov
FHWA/Eastern Resource Center
10 S. Howard Street, Suite 4000
Baltimore, MD 21201

Appendix D

List of Questions Used in

Domestic Scan: Fiscal Constraint and Financial Planning

Salem, Oregon -- October 29, 2002

Phoenix, Arizona -- October 30, 2002

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania -- November 26, 2002

Format for all meetings: Brief presentations with dialogue followed by informal discussion.

Core questions:

  1. How does your statewide planning process address financial planning?
  2. How does your statewide plan document financial planning issues?
  3. How does the statewide planning process demonstrate fiscal constraint in its STIP?
  4. How is the current fiscal/economic environment reflected in long-range statewide planning and programming processes?
  5. How does the statewide planning process consider future financial trends and uncertainties?
  6. Do you use any performance measures that have a financial basis?
  7. As part of long-range planning, does the statewide planning process consider a "vision" or other scenarios in addition to fiscal constraint? Do these additional scenarios project cost and performance?
  8. What are the roles and responsibilities of the state DOT, MPOs, and local agencies in financial planning?
  9. To what extent does the Plan, including goals, priorities, policies, and financial projections, guide the STIP?

Detailed Discussion Questions:

1. Statewide/Metropolitan Planning Process

1.1. Is financial planning part of your planning process and documented in your plan? In a separate documents?

1.2. What type of data, input, and analysis do you use for your financial planning?

1.3. How does the current economic situation affect your financial forecast?

1.4. How many different scenarios does your state provide forecasts for?

1.5. Who is involved in the financial planning elements?

1.6. How is this information used in the LRP and in implementation?

1.7. Is there a need for calibration, and evaluation of the financial planning elements?

1.8. How does the state ensure equity among its regions, geographic locations, etc?

1.9. How does the state define "reasonably available"?

1.10. What are the state legislations/statutes impact your financial planning?

1.11. Are these information presented to the public for review and comments?

1.12. How is this information shared with regional transportation agencies/MPOs?

1.13. What are the differences in forecasting for transit vs. highways?

1.14. How are innovative financing activities reflected in financial planning?

1.15. How is the state's transportation vision reconciled with the financial planning?

1.16. Are performance measured linked to the financial planning?

1.17. What do you feel are the shortfalls and challenges in the overall financial planning process?

1.18. What issues do you encounter that you would like to highlight?

1.19. Is this a useful requirement and exercise?

2. Statewide Transportation Improvement Program and TIPs

2.1. How are the revenues forecast/budgeting for the STIP developed?

2.2. What type of data, input, and analysis do you use for your budget?

2.3. Who is involved in the process?

2.4. How is it documented? by year? by funding group? by source? by regions?

2.5. How often does the revenue forecast needs to be revised?

2.6. How is Advance constructions showed? How is the AC accounting impact on current and future programs?

2.7. What information is shared with the local agencies and MPOs?

2.8. How does the state ensure equity among its regions, geographic locations, etc?

2.9. How does the state define "reasonably available" in the STIP?

2.10. How does your state define fiscal constraint? And why?

2.11. How is fiscal constraint demonstrated and documented?

2.12. How many FTEs/personnel are needed to document fiscal constraint?

2.13. How is this information presented to the FHWA/FTA in the STIP?

2.14. Are these information presented to the public for review and comments?

2.15. How does the political forces impact the revenue forecast/budgeting process? Decision-making process?

2.16. What do you feel are the shortfalls and challenges in the overall revenue forecasting/budgeting process?

2.17. What issues do you encounter that you would like to highlight?

2.18. Is fiscal constraint a useful requirement and exercise? Should this be a planning or an accounting exercise?

3. Discussion of FHWA/FTA oversight of financial planning and fiscal constraint.

3.1. What is the overall role of the division planner for this requirement?

3.2. What is presented to you in the LRP and STIP?

3.3. Who reviews the documentation, the planner? The financial manager?

3.4. Does the division review the transit, as well as the highway funding?

3.5. Is this a planning activity?

3.6. What data do you use as basis of evaluating the State data? MPO data?

3.7. What review do you complete on the financial planning/revenue forecast?

4. Other related topics.

4.1. Recommendations and suggestions that you would like to make to FHWA/FTA

4.2. Training/Technical Assistance that you would like to see develop in the near future

Appendix E

Financial Scan Technical Resources: Documents and Web-Sites

Oregon

Reports

Web-Sites

Arizona

Reports

Web-Sites

Pennsylvania

Reports

Web-Sites

FHWA Home | HEP Home | Feedback
FHWA
United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration