The Cost of Status Quo Governor’s Task Force on Modernizing Transportation Funding in Idaho December 2, 2009 Presented by Idaho’s Metropolitan Planning.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
New Public Transit Alliance (NuPTA) RIPEC Study: Transportation at a Crossroads (2002) Growing Smart with Transit: A Report of the Transit 2020 Working.
Advertisements

Danville Area Transportation Study. Fundamentals of Metropolitan Planning Organizations Adam Aull Danville Area Transportation Study MPO ASCE Presentation.
County of Fairfax, Virginia Department of Transportation 1 Transportation Funding and Improving Roadway Services Delivery Transportation Advisory Commission.
R O A D U S E R F E E T A S K F O R C E 1 OREGONS TRANSPORTATION FUNDING CHALLENGE.
Wisconsin Transportation Finance and Policy Commission Freight Rail Day 2012 October 26, 2012.
County Transportation Systems Association of MN Counties, MN County Engineers Association, MN Inter-County Association Presentation to MN Senate Transportation.
Act 44 Transportation Funding John Dockendorf Pennsylvania Department of Transportation November 2007.
Paul F Mullen August  Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)  5 Year plan for transportation improvement activities inside the MAPA Transportation.
Infrastructure Planning and Funding MID-REGION COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS MID-REGION METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MARCH 19, 2015 NAIOP-NEW MEXICO CHAPTER.
GIS at PSRC GIS data collection & travel demand modeling ESRM 250 February 4, 2010.
Local Highway Technical Assistance Council Joint Senate and House Transportation Committees January
Current as of: Feb.06, New Economic Recovery Package: Not the Cure Federal government is working on a one-time economic recovery package Package.
Colorado Transportation Finance and Implementation Panel Overview Fort Morgan,Colorado September 13, 2007.
Your Roads The Future, Some History, and Alternatives For Wasco County April 23, 2013.
Proposition 1B and the Strategic Growth Plan Randell Iwasaki California Department of Transportation.
First home-interview survey (1944). Gravity model Where do the trips produced in TAZ 3 go? ? ? ? ?
21 st Century Committee Report Recommendations NC 73 Council of Planning Annual Meeting January 22, 2009.
Idaho on the Move V.05 Our Mission. Your Mobility. MOBILITY SAFETY ECONOMIC VITALITY IDAHO ON THE MOVE: A Long-Range Plan to Improve Safety, Mobility and.
TPO Board. 25-Year Planning Horizon Update LRTP every 5 years Identify needed major improvements Determine those that are “cost feasible” (i.e., highest.
International Partnership Meeting Thursday, January 17, 2013 Washington D.C. 1.
THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDING AN ALDOT PERSPECTIVE December 3, 2014.
April 30, 2010Subcommittee on Public Transportation Funding Idaho Task Force on Public Transportation Summary Report February 2004.
Fiscal Years Outlook Preliminary Six-Year Financial Plan and Six-Year Improvement Plan Strategy John W. Lawson, Chief Financial Officer Reta.
State and Federal Funding Programs for Local Agency Projects Alan Lively Local Government Section Project Delivery Specialist.
THE CONDITION OF OUR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE How Do We Adequately Finance Our System?
California’s Infrastructure Crisis. Statewide Transportation System Needs Assessment “California’s transportation system is in jeopardy. Underfunding.
Trends in Urban Transit in the U.S. – Some Comparisons Edd Hauser, P.E., PhD Nicholas J. Swartz, MPA Center for Transportation Policy Studies UNC Charlotte.
Transportation Funding Act HB Up date Radney Simpson, Assistant State Transportation Planning Administrator Presented to Georgia Association of Metropolitan.
Transportation Planning Board: Background, Constrained Long- Range Plan, and Ongoing Work Presentation to the Board of Directors Metropolitan Washington.
Ed Christopher Resource Center Planning Team Federal Highway Administration 4749 Lincoln Mall Drive Matteson, IL 60443
The Regional Forum for Transportation Planning. Southwestern Pennsylvania 10 Counties >7,000 square miles 2.66 million citizens 548 municipalities 132.
Highway Program Financing July Michigan Allocations Federal Law + State Law + Michigan Policy = MDOT & Local Allocations of Federal Apportionment.
MnDOT-ACEC Annual Conference March 5,  Capital planning and programming at MnDOT  Major considerations  A more transparent and collaborative.
Michigan’s Roads Crisis: Study Findings, Conclusions and Where Do We Go From Here? Best Practices Conference Rick Olson, State Representative, 55 th District.
Ron Hall Tribal Technical Assistance Program Colorado State University
Performance Analysis Presentation to the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board (NCR-TPB) November 28, 2012 Adopted: July 18, 2012 Item.
A M O T I A A N N U A L M E E T I N G 2 3 S E P T E M B E R N A S H V I L L E, T N 1 A View from the State DOTs Joung H. Lee Associate Director.
Presentation to ***(group) on ***(date) 1.  Cities - 11  Highway districts – 3  Ada and Canyon Counties  School districts – 2  Valley Regional Transit.
California’s Strategic Growth Plan Ken De Crescenzo Federal Liaison California Department of Transportation.
Missoula Long Range Transportation Plan 11 December 2008 Open House.
Construction Conference Construction Conference NDDOT’s: NDDOT’s: Future Federal Funding Future Federal Funding State Legislative & Budget issues.
North Central Texas Council of Governments Transportation Department Summary Presentation January 2004 MOBILITY 2025: THE METROPOLITAN.
Prepared for Transportation Planning Board presented by Arlee Reno Cambridge Systematics, Inc. in cooperation with K.T. Analytics November 16, 2005 Status.
May 21, 2008 Bringing Transit Planning to the MPO Planning Table Bringing Transit Planning To The MPO Planning Table Daniel Rudge.
3000 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 208 Washington, DC
Transportation Investment Act of 2010 AASHTO/MTAP Conference December 6-9, 2010 Savannah, Georgia Steve Kish, Transit Program Manager Georgia Department.
Transportation Funding Workshop Nova Southeastern University December 10, 2012.
Who Does What Susan Handy TTP282 October Players Government Industry Citizens/ Consumers.
June 9, 2009 VTA 2009 Annual Conference DRPT Annual Update 2009 VTA Conference Chip Badger Agency Director.
1 Steve Heminger Executive Director, MTC May 2009.
Minneapolis Regional Chamber of Commerce, Critical Issues Forum Charlie Zelle, Commissioner Minnesota Department of Transportation.
Investing in Transportation Infrastructure Government Research Association Annual Policy Conference Janet Oakley, AASHTO July 28, 2009.
Regional Transportation & Land Use IREM / BOMA Real Estate Forecast Breakfast 2009 Rich Macias, Director Regional & Comprehensive Planning Southern California.
Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board (TDLCB)
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century TEA-21 Prepared by Iowa Department of Transportation September 1998.
The Regional Big Picture Preparing to Conduct Outreach For the 2010 Constrained Long-Range Plan Presentation to the TPB Access for All Advisory Committee.
The Kern Regional Transportation Plan A Vision and Guidebook for Kern County in 2025.
Growth Management Legislative Discussion April 3, 2012 Growth Management Legislative Discussion April 3, 2012.
House Transportation Policy and Finance April 13, 2016 Tracy Hatch Deputy Commissioner Chief Financial Officer / Chief Operating Officer.
Unit 2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (LRTP) LCTCC Educational Program.
FUNDING AVAILABILITY & SAFETY PROGRAMS 3//21/2013.
Virginia House Bill 2 – Funding the Right Projects Intelligent Transportation System Activities May 19, 2016.
Next Steps.  To begin Planning Council discussion about the MPO’s Next Steps. Now that the 2035 Regional Transportation Plan has been updated and adopted,
Unit 1 THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS AND THE ROLE OF THE MPO LCTCC Educational Program.
MPO 100 Presented by Erica Tait. What is an MPO?  MPO stands for Metropolitan Planning Organization  Mandated by the federal government for urbanized.
Beyond Oil Transforming Transportation: A National Demonstration Project Breakout Session: A New Paradigm - Future of Transportation, Funding, and Climate.
What is the state of transportation in the Middle Tennessee area?
21st Century Transportation Committee Finance Subcommittee
I-81 Corridor Improvement Plan
Comprehensive and Dependable Transportation Plan
Presentation transcript:

The Cost of Status Quo Governor’s Task Force on Modernizing Transportation Funding in Idaho December 2, 2009 Presented by Idaho’s Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Presentation Outline What is a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)? ▫ Why do we exist? ▫ What do we do? How do MPOs develop plans? What is the funding situation? ▫ What are the assumptions used? What are the ramifications? Congestion Financial

What is a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)? A regional planning entity responsible for transportation planning and approval of U.S. Department of Transportation funding for federally designated urbanized areas.

Why do MPOs exist? Mandated by law: ▫ U.S. Government mandate in Title 23, U.S.C. Section 134(a)(2):  “Metropolitan Planning Organizations…shall develop transportation plans and programs for urbanized areas of the state.”  “Provide for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods.” ▫ Required by federal government for an urban area to receive federal aid transportation funds

What is an MPO’s role? Provide a forum that brings together all aspects of the regional transportation system in order to achieve a unified voice ▫ Local and state ▫ Roadway, transit, non-motorized Provide coordination, collaboration, and collective decision-making on regional transportation system investments

What do MPOs do? Develop regional transportation plans ▫ Long-range transportation plans  20+ years ▫ Short range transportation plans  5 years  “Transportation Improvement Program” Oversee the prioritization and allocation of U.S. Department of Transportation funds to ▫ Address regional transportation needs ▫ Improve the local economy ▫ Maintain or improve air quality

Where do MPOs exist? Urban areas over 50,000 in population Five MPOs in Idaho: □ Kootenai Metropolitan Planning Organization □ Lewis-Clark Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization □ Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho □ Bannock Transportation Planning Organization □ Bonneville Metropolitan Planning Organization Urban areas over 200,000 in populations □ Transportation Management Area (TMA)  Special designation with enhanced “rules” □ Northern Ada County □ Within the Community Planning Association planning area

Where are the MPOs in Idaho?

What is the statewide relevance of MPOs? Planning areas encompass ▫ 63% of Idaho’s population ▫ 54% of Idaho’s civilian jobs ▫ 815 lane miles of state roadways ▫ 6,814 lane miles of local roadways ▫ 32 cities ▫ 6 counties ▫ 9 highway districts

Who makes up an MPO? Governed by a Board of Directors □ Primarily elected officials  Cities  Counties  Highway districts □ Special members  Idaho Transportation Department  Local transit authorities  Universities (Boise State, Idaho State)  Tribes (Coeur d’Alene, Shoshone-Bannock, Nez Perce)  Others

How is a long-range plan developed? 20+ year planning horizon ▫ Predicts travel growth based on future land use ▫ Plans for future transportation programs and projects based upon the forecasts Completed/updated every 4 to 5 years Fiscally constrained ▫ Can only include projects where there is a reasonable chance of funding ▫ Other needed projects can be listed in the plan as unfunded (“illustrative”)

How is a long-range plan developed? Rigorous modeling □ Travel demand □ Population growth □ Economic growth □ Air quality Data-based □ Census □ Traffic counts □ Population estimates and forecasts □ GIS Public involvement Realistic future scenarios

What is considered when making planning decisions? Data and modeling results Necessities to accommodate future growth and travel demand Fiscal realities Regional dialogue on a vision of the future Planning for level of service “C” or “D” ▫ Pragmatic; not extravagant

What is “level of service”? A = Free flow B = Reasonably free flow C = Stable flow D = Approaching unstable flow E = Unstable flow F = Forced or breakdown flow

Level of service BDFBDF

Planning for congestion – Kootenai MPO

Assumption: Population (20-year planning horizon) ▫ Idaho population growth = 1.3% annually

Assumption: Population (20-year planning horizon) Percent of populations in MPO planning areas

Assumption: Funding (20-year planning horizon) Federal: 1.5% annual increase State fuel usage = 0.9% annual increase State vehicle registration = 2% annual increase Property tax = 3.9% annual increase Impact fees = 2% annual increase Local option tax registration fee = 4% annual increase

Assumption: State funding (20-year planning horizon) No increases based upon Legislative changes ▫ No change in fuel tax rates ▫ No change in Highway Distribution Account sources (fuel tax, registration fees) ▫ No change in Highway Distribution Account formulas

Assumption: Inflation (20-year planning horizon) Roadway construction inflation rates ▫ Short-term inflation (2010 – 2014)  2.8% ▫ Long-term inflation (2015 – 2030)  4.0%  Consistent with Federal Highway Administration guidance

Annual revenues per year; 2009 to 2030 (MPO planning areas)

OPR vs. Expansion What is “OPR”? Short for “operations, preservation, restoration.” All non-capacity maintenance projects. The same as the following ITD categories: What is “Expansion”? All capacity projects. The same as the following ITD category: OperationsPreservationRestoration Expansion  Snowplowing  Striping  Patching potholes  Signal/sign repair  Crack sealing  Guard rail repair  Grading gravel  Seal coating  Overlays  Bridge deck seals  Bridge deck replacement  Grading gravel surfaces  Rebuild old roads and bridges  NOT adding lanes or widen roads Adding lanes or widen roads or bridges

Average annual shortfall

Total projected shortfall (MPO planning areas) Total average annual projected shortfall based on current dollars over the next 20 years within MPO planning areas $169.9 Million

The cost of status quo Cost of doing nothing exceeds the cost of doing something. ▫ Increased congestion → increased costs →

Cost of congestion: Time

Cost of congestion: Financial Value of time = $24

Cost of congestion: Personal Opportunity costs ▫ Time with family vs. time stuck in traffic vs.

Future challenges facing MPOs Potential changes in federal transportation bill ▫ Donee state vs. donor state ▫ Solvency of the federal Highway Trust Fund ▫ More emphasis on transit to decrease vehicle miles traveled ▫ Without dedicated funding for transit, Idaho may not be able to meet new goals Air quality issues ▫ Potential federal changes to air quality standards

In summary MPOs play a key role in transportation planning and investment in Idaho MPOs’ transportation plans… ▫ Are based on solid data and mathematical modeling ▫ Use significant public involvement ▫ Are pragmatic and realistic  “Family sedan” type of plans; not luxury models Financially, Idaho’s transportation picture is grim and unsustainable if we want to meet public expectations.

The bottom line… The cost of doing nothing is greater than the cost of repairing the system.

Thank you