|
Surface Transportation Policy Project Resource Guide: Case Studies, Regions Repond to Change
Regions Respond to Change New Policies Emphasize Long Term Vision, Diverse Options Regional planning for transportation has been a function of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOS) for two decades. However, the lntermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act requires MPOs to broaden their planning processes significantly and gives them new responsibilities in selecting projects that fulfill the goals of their plans. ISTEA's requirements mean that MPOs will have to look for new partners to assist them in evaluating transportation decisions in light of their impacts on land use, energy efficiency and economic vitality. Community members, business leaders and a range of public agencies must be brought into the transportation planning process. At the same time, projects must be selected annually in a manner that assures their direct link to long range plans. Regions face many challenges in making good on ISTEA's promise of an interconnecting transportation system that serves the social, environmental and economic goals of communities. This report examines two efforts that are currently underway, one in long range planning, one in project selection and short term transportation improvement program. While the results of these processes are still being evaluated, both represent a new approach to the transportation planning process. Pittsburgh's Regional Transportation Partnership. In May of 1992 a group of 60 government, business and community leaders came together to help move the Pittsburgh region toward integrating land use and transportation decisions. The working group was convened by the Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission (SPRPC), the metropolitan planning organization for a six-county region that includes the city of Pittsburgh. SPRPC's board of elected and appointed officials represents all six counties, the city of Pittsburgh, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the region's public transit agencies. SPRPC's professional staff of 40 consists of transportation planners, economic development specialists, and skilled providers of technical assistance to local governments. The Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Transportation Partnership seeks to balance growth pressures, transportation needs, and environmental protection. Click HERE for graphic. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT RESOURCE GUIDE CASE STUDIES SPRPC selected participants based on the diversity of their perspectives and the variety of skills they brought to the table (see page 5). Not surprisingly, different members of the group, known as the Regional Transportation Partnership, see the process as useful in a variety of ways. Marilyn Skolnick of the Sierra Club, Allegheny Group, sees the Partnership as "a golden opportunity, not to be missed, where it will be possible to marry environmental, land-use, and transportation issues so that a better quality of life will result for all residents." Malcolm Prine, vice chairman of the SPRPC's Transportation Policy Committee, sees the Partnership as a means to facilitate economic growth. Allegheny County Tax Assessment Director Scott O'Donnell sees in the Partnership an impetus to break the cycle of building and "abandoning" regional assets, particularly center city infrastructure. What participants share is a desire to shape the region's future in order to maximize its limited financial resources and land supply, promoting economic growth without sacrificing the quality of life in the region. Participants also recognize that their ability to reach consensus on transportation decisions helps assure the continued flow of federal and state transportation funds into the region. The Partnership and the new federal requirements. The Clean Air Act and ISTEA have forced metropolitan planning organizations to aggressively pursue land use planning as a means of shaping regional transportation decisions to contribute to environmental and community quality. Because Pittsburgh is listed as a moderate nonattainment area for ozone under the Clean Air Act, SPRPC's Executive Director Robert Kochanowski identified the congestion management system (CMS) requirement of ISTEA as an opportunity to change regional thinking about transportation planning. The CMS can become a tool for integrating all transportation facilities and services in a system, promoting connections between modes and shifting the planning perspective from one that is based on facilities to one that is based on users' needs. The goal of SPRPC's Partners up initiative is to help fashion a CMS and develop a set of transportation investment priorities for the region over the next 20 years. The Partnership concept recognizes that both funding and land are finite resources. What makes the Partnership's approach different from a traditional capital investment plan is its emphasis on land use planning. The Partnership is struggling with divergent ideas of land use, and the role of land as both a commercial asset and a natural resource. Members of the partnership do not universally accept that land controls should be a means to guiding growth and transportation decisions in the region. The role of SPRPC has been to illuminate some implicit assumptions about land use and transportation, and to demonstrate the mutual cause-and-effect relationship between land use decisions and transportation options. SPRPC's Long Range Plan. SPRPC has created several new advisory committees to carry out the interlocking requirements of ISTEA for long-range regional planning. The two leading committees are a 40- member Transportation Plan Policy Committee made up of senior representatives from the region's public, private and nonprofit sectors, and a 20-member Transportation Plan Technical Committee which includes planning and transportation agency directors throughout the region. The two committees 2 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT RESOURCE GUIDE CASE STUDIES combine to form the Regional Transportation Partnership, allowing civic and business leaders to work with technical experts on strategies for the region. In addition, the Technical Committee acts as a liaison between the Partnership and the SPRPC staff, advising them in a number of areas related to the long range plan. A subcommittee of the Policy Committee, the Transportation Plan Finance Committee has the duty of assuring that the plan complies with ISTEA's financial constraints. Under ISTEA, plans must only include activities and projects that can be realistically funded from existing or anticipated sources. The Finance Committee includes representatives of the major agencies involved in surface transportation projects, including the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), the Port Authority, and the Turnpike Commission. Experienced practitioners of finance and economics also serve on the committee. The Finance Committee must define the fiscal limits of the plan, develop and assess options for new transportation financing and promote the financial plan that is ultimately adopted. Several other committees advise SPRPC members and staff on specific aspects of the planning process. The Environmental Subcommittee defines and identifies natural areas of environmental sensitivity and recommends appropriate levels of protection for consideration in developing the plan. The Public Relations Committee works with SPRPC staff to help raise public awareness of the planning process, encourage public input into the plan, and assure consideration of public comments. The Transportation Plan Forecast Committee advises SPRPC staff professionals about the adequacy of models and forecasts to test alternative options. The committee is made up of county planning directors and technical experts from both the Policy and Technical Committees. The Forecast Committee evaluates models to measure and project population changes, economic activity, technology developments, and other factors influencing the region. A Citizens Advisory Panel, created in the Spring of 1993, meets with SPRPC to give input on the full range of issues being examined in the planning process. Land Use, Growth, and Transportation Planning. To give itself a means of focusing discussion, the Policy Committee devised four possible land use scenarios to consider as they set priorities for future spending. The regional plan is unlikely to be based on any one of these scenarios. Instead, they are research tools to allow the committee to group transportation priorities and policies and test their effects on air quality, traffic volume, land development patterns, and other considerations mandated by ISTEA. The four scenarios are as follows: The Targeted Growth scenario emphasizes minimal land consumption, reinforces Pittsburgh as the region's commercial hub, emphasizes redevelopment and focuses new development where infrastructure already exists. Public transportation is favored over highways, and environmental preservation and reclamation are emphasized. The Valley and Suburban Renaissance scenario seeks to rebuild the distressed industrial communities lining the region's rivers and maximize use of existing infrastructure. 3 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT RESOURCE GUIDE CASE STUDIES The New Growth scenario emphasizes new highway construction as a means toward economic growth. This scenario encourages industry to settle in sparsely developed areas of the region where inexpensive land is available and where building costs are low. Low-density housing and rural locations for shopping centers and office space are supported by the scenario. The Radial Growth scenario directs more transportation investment toward management and operations improvements on existing facilities. This option would reinvest in the region's existing system to improve traffic circulation. The assumption is that new economic growth would follow the alignment of existing roads and transit routes. Conclusion. SPRPC is emerging as a leader in the development of a vision for the Allegheny region of the future. The Regional Transportation Partnership is living up to its name, forging new alliances among citizens, business leaders and public officials. To its credit, the Partnership is operating in an uncertain atmosphere, due to the federal bottleneck of regulations for the Clean Air Act and the fact that ISTEA is still new and untested. Peter Longini of SPRPC says, "We're going ahead with our planning efforts but we are running the risk of having our results substantially tweaked after the state's clean air implementation plan has been issued." Nonetheless, SPRPC feels confident that the time it invests in the Partnership will pay off in more widespread agreement on the region's priorities, and streamlined project selection as the result of consensus-based planning. For more information, contact: Peter Longini Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission The Waterfront 200 First Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 412/391-5590 4 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT RESOURCE GUIDE CASE STUDIES Members of the Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Transportation Partnership Transportation Plan Policy Committee Allegheny Conference on Community Development (2) Allegheny Co. Board of Commissioners Armstrong Co. Board of Commissioners Allegheny Development Corporation Beaver Co. Board of Commissioners Butler Co. Board of Commissioners Carnegie Mellon University Citizens League of Southwestern Pennsylvania Constructors Assoc. of Western Pennsylvania DDF&M Advertising and Public Relations Eastern Westmoreland Development Corp. League of Women Voters Mellon Bank Michael Baker, Jr., Inc. National Development Corp. Penn's Southwest Association Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Pennsylvania Environmental Council Pennsylvania Governor's Office Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Peoples Natural Gas Company Pittsburgh Baseball Club Pittsburgh Board of Property Assessment Pittsburgh City Council Pittsburgh Mayor's Office Pittsburgh Partnership for Neighborhood Development Port Authority of Allegheny County (2) Port of Pittsburgh Commission Sierra Club, Allegheny Group State Rep. Richard Cessar State Rep. Joseph Petrarca State Senator J. Barry Stout Trumbull Corporation University of Pittsburgh Urban League of Pennsylvania, Inc. Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh Washington County Board of Commissioners West Penn American Automobile Association Westinghouse Electric Corporation Westmoreland County Board of Commissioners Five active civic leaders also serve as private citizens. Transportation Plan Technical Committee Airport Corridor Transportation Association Allegheny County Planning Department Armstrong County Department of Economic and Community Development Beaver County Corporation for Economic Development Beaver County Planning Commission Beaver County Transit Authority Butler County Planning Commission Duquesne Light Federal Highway Administration Mon Valley Progress Council Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (3) Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Pittsburgh City Planning Office Pittsburgh National Bank Port Authority of Allegheny County Urban Redevelopment Authority of the City of Pittsburgh Washington County Planning Commission Western Pennsylvania Conservancy Westmoreland County Planning Department Westmoreland County Transit Authority 5 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT RESOURCE GUIDE CASE STUDIES Albany's New Approach to Selecting Projects One of the most pressing challenges regions face in implementing ISTEA is how to continue making short-term decisions about projects while revising long-term plans. The Capital District Transportation Committee (CDTC) in Albany, N.Y. tackled this dilemma by revising its 5-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to respond directly to ISTEA's emphasis on environmental, social and economic priorities in transportation decision making. CDTC's new TIP incorporates a three-tier project evaluation process that takes into account the overall impacts of proposed transportation projects on system-wide efficiency, environmental protection and desired land uses. The new evaluation criteria developed by CDTC substantially expand the region's ability to diversify and integrate its transportation system to better serve its residents. CDTC is simultaneously undertaking a revision and expansion of its Ten-Year Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) into a comprehensive 25-year plan for the area it serves. As the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for a four-county area, CDTC conducts regional transportation planning for 78 towns and cities, including the state capital of Albany, Schenectady and Troy. CDTC's 21 voting members represent local elected officials, the regional and state transportation authorities, and the state Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). Serving in an advisory capacity are the Regional Administrator for the Federal Transit Administration, and the Division Administrator for the Federal Highway Administration. CDTC's 16-member Planning Committee evaluates project applications for the TIP. Applications may be submitted by the sponsoring counties, municipalities and agencies. During the first programming cycle in 1992, the Committee recognized that the array of projects submitted by local governments would not represent the full range of projects and activities eligible for the new federal funds. In an effort to push future project submissions and promote awareness among local governments of the broad flexibility contained in ISTEA, the Committee rewrote its project selection criteria to respond to ISTEA's mandate in midstream. CDTC also nominated three projects itself Each project was "nontraditional" in the sense that it sought to integrate transportation into a broader context. All three projects received funding through the TIP. A new Travel Demand Management Program creates a financial incentive for employers to develop and implement TDM programs. The Corridor Management Initiative is a challenge grant program for local jurisdictions to better integrate land use and transportation planning at the local level. The Advanced Traffic Management System takes a first step toward integrating traffic management systems across Jurisdictional and modal lines. Background: The Existing Framework. ISTEA requires MPOs to undertake Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPS) that list all projects and activities for the region for a minimum of three years. Under ISTEA, an MPO's TIP must be consistent with the existing long range transportation plan for the region. If the MPO is in a nonattainment area for federal air quality standards, the TIP must also conform to state plans for implementation of the federal Clean Air Act. Finally, the TIP must demonstrate 6 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT RESOURCE GUIDE CASE STUDIES reasonably assured sources of funding for all projects and activities. Congress included the latter requirement to strengthen the likelihood that conforming TIPs would be fully implemented. The success of regional and state clean air efforts hinges on the predictability and likelihood of plan implementation. CDTC's TIP extends over a five-year period, from 1993 to 1998. The agency's long range plan, revised in 1990, established many of the same goals included in ISTEA: increased emphasis on diversifying and coordinating transportation modes, renewed examination of bicycling as an important transportation option, broadened consideration of transportation's impacts on land use and the environment, and consideration of the full social and economic costs and benefits of transportation options. CDTC is undergoing additional revisions in 1993 and 1994 to create a comprehensive 25- year plan. To further link transportation and land use decisions, CDTC required its 1993 TIP to be consistent with local land use plans. Projects to expand the road system must include commitments to maximize their useful life through demand management and by supplemental transit service. CDTC's TIP revision was aided by the agency's long-established practice of analyzing the full costs and benefits of transportation proposals and of using the best available models to forecast the mutual impacts of transportation and land use on one another. In anticipation of the multiple perspectives required by the broadened planning and project selection processes, CDTC is making efforts to strengthen its communication with the public and involve a number of public and private interest representatives in regional planning. A December 1992 survey on public information needs indicated that direct involvement in advisory committees, brainstorming sessions and focus groups is preferable to more traditional means of communication, such as surveys and media articles. During the development of its new project selection process, the Planning Committee held open meetings 1 each month and distributed its discussions to a mailing list of local jurisdictions, transportation interests and public advocacy groups. Several special meetings were held to update the public on the Committee's progress. Public involvement in the 1993 TIP process was only moderate, but was significantly increased over the past. For example, the 1993 TIP generated a dozen press articles, whereas previous TIPs had prompted one or two articles at most. CDTC is developing a more extensive approach to involving the public in its long-range planning process. Phase One of Project Selection: Screening. The Planning Committee first established basic screening criteria designed to eliminate incomplete or inadequately planned submissions. Projects were evaluated for their consistency with the long range plan and local land use plans, their financial viability, and a set of project specific requirements. Each proposed project was required to demonstrate its consistency with the Regional Transportation Plan (the long range plan for the region), which consist of a Major Facilities Plan, a Ten-Year Draft Capacity and Mobility Plan, and specific sub-area and corridor studies. Major projects with system-wide impacts were not considered unless they were part of the regional plan. To assure coordination beyond regional boundaries, CDTC also required project sponsors to demonstrate that the proposed project was consistent with or complimentary to facilities in adjacent jurisdictions. Projects were also required 7 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT RESOURCE GUIDE CASE STUDIES to be "consistent with community desires as documented in local land use plans or other policy documents, at public meetings, or through other applicable means." [CDTC 1993-1998 TIP, Adopted March 23, 1993] Each project also had to demonstrate that it addressed at least one of the 15 factors outlined in Section 134 of ISTEA (see page 10). Safety was added as a sixteenth consideration in the process. Reasonable cost estimates were required of each project, based on commonly accepted cost estimating practices. Project scope and major facility needs had to be sufficiently described, but preliminary engineering was not required. A financial plan was required to show complete project funding, which could include existing sources and those expected to be in place by project implementation. Local funding, usually the 20 percent minimum match required by ISTEA, had to be assured by local authority. Each project was required to submit adequate detail to show project limits, scope and concept. Phases of larger projects were considered as long as the project as a whole met the other screening requirements. Each proposed project had to meet an officially identified transportation system need and had to show a reasonable construction schedule which could be implemented by 1998. All projects also had to demonstrate their eligibility for STP or CMAQ funds. CDTC used the list of Transportation Control Measures in the Clean Air Act and lists of eligible activities in ISTEA to develop a comprehensive set of 13 categories of STP and CMAQ funding, including highways, major streets, bridges, transit, transportation demand management strategies, bicycle and pedestrian projects, planning, and transportation enhancement activities. Phase Two: Evaluating Merit. Projects that passed the screening test advanced to a merit evaluation. The objective of the evaluation was to encompass the full "universe" of possibilities under ISTEA and to base judgements of merit on the potential performance of each proposal in moving people and goods while fulfilling the other goals of ISTEA. Wherever possible, the merit evaluation incorporated values that cut across transportation modes, such as overall cost-effectiveness. These were judged over the full life of the proposed project. This helped to strengthen the value of low-cost strategies to control traffic, as well as transit projects, which tend to be more costly at the beginning of their implementation and to become cost-effective over their lifetime. Qualitative considerations were incorporated into the procedure to boost the value of projects benefitting community and environmental needs. CDTC also worked with each project sponsor to ensure that all project benefits were enumerated, including aspects that cannot be readily quantified, such as the neighborhood benefits of removing traffic from local streets. Projects given favorable attention included improvements to existing facilities in lieu of new facilities, activities or projects to integrate and maintain existing facilities to increase efficiency, and strategies for reduced single-occupant auto use, including a Guaranteed Ride Home Program. Quantitative data included description, scope, project objectives, cost estimates and estimating procedures, target year for construction, phasing, current conditions, functional classification, and other detailed information. Qualitative data included safety benefits, savings in travel time, energy efficiency, and life cycle cost savings. 8 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT RESOURCE GUIDE CASE STUDIES The model significantly changes which projects rise to the top in a given programming cycle. Before ISTEA, the NYSDOT programmed the majority of program funds for the region, with little flexibility for alternatives to roads or projects that cut across modes. Between 70 and 85 percent of all funds were dedicated for road and bridge repair. What little discretionary funding was left went to mobility enhancement projects, including transit projects. The new model is better suited to "capturing the inherent value of preserving the existing system," says CDTC Senior Planner Kristina Younger, by comparing the merits of mobility and repair projects fairly. Cost/Benefit Analysis. During the merit evaluation, a total benefit/cost ratio was calculated for each project based on the annualized cost of the project and on the following project impacts: Congestion Relief Air Quality Improvement Noise Reduction Residential Traffic Impact Community and Ecological Disruption Access to Public Transportation Modal Integration Alternative Modes within the Project Transportation System Linkage Economic Development Goals Project Specific Benefits Phase Three: Producing a Balanced Program. Once projects had been screened and evaluated on their individual merits, the range of projects were examined together with the goal of assembling a balanced program to contribute to infrastructure maintenance, management of existing facilities and transportation demand on those facilities, and improvements to those facilities where warranted. Some trade-offs were necessary to accomplish equity among modes and geographic areas within the region, but the CDTC's decision to undertake individual project merit evaluation before such tradeoffs were made contributed to a more even-handed approach to the final project selection phase. Conclusion. The CDTC's first effort to create a new framework for its project decisions resulted in measured success. The final draft version of the 114-item TIP was completed in February 1993 and adopted after public comment in March 1993. CDTC's new project selection process engaged the members of the Planning Committee and Board in a new way of looking at their decisions for the region's mobility as they affect the region's environmental, social and energy goals. As with any consensus-based process, the CDTC's approach is dependent on the goodwill and focus of the players involved. The small size of the review committee and the good-faith effort of committee members contributed to the success of the arrangement. A larger, more complex region would likely need to modify the process to absorb opinion differences and conflicting needs, and could require a more disciplined operating procedure. That the CDTC's process can work in a large metropolitan region, however, is demonstrated by the fact that it shares similarities with a project selection process established for the Bay Area of California by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 9 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT RESOURCE GUIDE CASE STUDIES The success of merit evaluation within the process depends on the availability and breadth of good data. CDTC's staff of 10 is fortunate to have a good working relationship with their regional office of the NYSDOT, which supplements their research and data collection efforts. Other MPOs may find it necessary to "staff up" in order to implement a strategy for project selection similar to CDTC's. In addition, CDTC's initial experience was that the cost-benefit analysis tended to overwhelm other criteria for selecting projects. This underlines the need for project designers and planners to work together, and may point to a need to undertake cost-benefit analysis after merit evaluation has been completed. Finally, the Transportation Improvement Program for a region is only as good as its long range plan. As CDTC undertakes its new planning process, the project selection process will have to be further refined to respond to the plan's new goals. The real test of the process will likely come in the next two years, when the mix of proposed projects will be more diverse and the public will have a more active role in proposing and evaluating projects for the region. For more information, contact: Kristina Younger, Senior Planner Capital District Transportation Committee 5 Computer Drive West Albany, NY 12205 518/458-2161 The STPP Resource Guide is a product of the Surface Transportation Policy Project. STPP is a network of diverse organizations, coalitions and grassroots groups whose goal is to develop a national transportation policy that better serves the environmental, social and economic interests of the nation. Representing both transportation consumers and providers, STPP seeks to frame public debate about federal transportation policy and to help craft a new transportation program that focuses on moving people and goods, rather than vehicles, without favoring any single mode of transportation. Formed in the Fall of 1990, STPP encourages the participation of every concerned citizen and organization in its work. The work of STPP is made possible by grants from the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Educational Foundation of America, the Energy Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the James C Penney Foundation, Inc., and the Surdna Foundation. For copies of other STPP Resource Guide material, contact STPP at 1400 Sixteenth Street, N. W., Suite 300, Washington, D. C 20036 Telephone: 202/939-3470. Copyright July 1993 Surface Transportation Policy Project. Reprints with written permission, This document was printed on recycled paper. 10 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT RESOURCE GUIDE CASE STUDIES Appendix: Addressing ISTEA Planning Factors through Project Selection Section 134(f) of the ISTEA requires the consideration of 15 factors in planning and project selection. The Capital District Transportation Committee documented the results of their first round of project selection under ISTEA, which helped defined their progress in meeting ISTEA's goals, and allowed them to identify considerations for further attention in the next project selection cycle. 1. Preservation of existing transportation facilities and, where practical, ways to meet transportation needs by using existing transportation facilities more efficiently. Infrastructure projects which emphasize preserving the existing system make up 75 percent of CDTC's commitments for 1993-1998. In addition, the demand management focus of the mobility portion of the long range Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) is an application of the philosophy that increasing efficiency of the existing transportation system is a cost effective method of addressing mobility needs. 2. The consistency of transportation planning with applicable Federal, State and local energy conservation programs, goals and objectives. Energy conservation was emphasized for mobility projects in the merit evaluation of candidate projects. 3. The need to relieve congestion and prevent congestion from occurring where it does not yet occur. The implementation of this goal was a key consideration in the formation of the TIP. Mobility projects comprise 19 percent of the TIP, including both capacity- increasing projects and the implementation of demand management strategies. 4. The likely effect of transportation policy decisions on land use and development and the consistency of transportation plans and projects with the provisions of all applicable short and long term land use and development plans. CDTC's TIP had several linkages to the RTP's social, economic and environmental goals. The TIP also includes a planning project to fund additional land use management plans by local governments in important metropolitan transportation corridors. 5. The programming of expenditure on transportation enhancement activities as required in section 133. Because the state set-aside for these activities was not programmed and no state project selection guidelines existed when the TIP was developed, decisions in this category were deferred until 1994. 6. The effects of all transportation projects to be undertaken within the metropolitan area, without regard to whether such projects are publicly funded. The TIP as a whole contains all "significant" transportation projects, most of which are publicly funded. The air quality impacts and links to the RTP were measured for all these projects. 7. International border crossings and access to airports, intermodal facilities, major freight distribution routes, national parks, recreation areas, monuments and historic sites, and military installations. The ports in the Capital District were invited to participate in the TIP process, and a special effort was made to bring freight providers into the process. Access to intermodal 11 SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT RESOURCE GUIDE CASE STUDIES facilities was examined and access to the Albany County airport is a major issue in the region. Transportation access to other sites of the character described in this planning principal is either adequate or not applicable. 8. The need for connectivity of roads with the metropolitan area to roads outside the metropolitan area. All projects are consistent with facilities in adjacent jurisdictions. 9. The transportation needs identified through the use of the management systems required by section 303 of title 23. Three of the six state management systems required by ISTEA are asset-based (bridge, pavement, transit facilities) and three are performance- based (safety, congestion, intermodal connections). Three of these systems exist in New York for pavement, bridge and traffic safety, while three are in the early stages of development. The 1993 CDTC TIP reflects only the results of the existing management systems. 10. The preservation of right-of-way for construction of future transportation projects, including identification of unused rights- of-way that may be needed for future transportation corridors and identification of those corridors for which action is most needed to prevent destruction or loss. CDTC allowed right-of-way preservation projects to be considered for programming where a compelling case for early acquisition could be made. However, the identification of corridors for which action is most needed to prevent destruction or loss was referred to the long range planning process. 11. Methods to enhance the efficient movement of freight. A special effort to bring the Ports and other freight providers into the CDTC process was made during the development of the 1993-1998 TIP. Sponsors of individual projects that involved freight movement were asked to Justify their projects in terms of improved efficiency. 12. The use of life cycle costs in the design and engineering of bridges, tunnels or pavement. Every project was evaluated for its merit in this regard. 13. The overall social, economic, energy and environmental effects of transportation decisions. The CDTC programming principles focus on implementing the RTP social, economic and environmental goals as a key factor. 14. Methods to expand and enhance transit services and to increase the use of such services. CDTC followed a principle that a mixed strategy is the most effective to enhance mobility. As such, demand management strategies, enhanced transit services, and expanded transit services were evaluated and considered for both CMAQ and STP funds in light of the attainment of our stated mobility goals. Innovative thinking was encouraged, and as a result, $103 million or 11 percent of the 1993-1998 TIP focuses on demand management and transit services. 15. Capital investments that would result in increased security in transit systems. Transit security has not been identified as a major issue in the Capital District. The regional transit authority was an active participant in the 1993-98 TIP development process, and did not propose any projects to address security issues. If security does become an issue, CDTC will fairly consider these projects in light of other identified transportation needs. 12
