Lesson

Link the funding of management and operations (M&O) strategies and ITS to regional transportation planning goals.

An Albany, NY, metropolitan planning experience in funding allocation.


11/30/2004
Albany,New York,United States


Background (Show)

Lesson Learned

Increasingly, local and regional transportation plans include language supporting improved transportation systems management, promoting more efficient use of existing infrastructure, and adopting a more customer-oriented approach to providing transportation services. Yet the funding and staff resources to support the implementation of such planning objectives are often lacking. For example, a plan might state that regional coordination to maximize efficiency of the existing system is a top priority, but no funding is then allocated toward regional incident management programs, corridor management strategies, or regional traveler information systems.
  • Determine minimum budget requirements to support long-range transportation plan objectives in each program area. The Capital District Transportation Commission (CDTC), the Metropolitan Planning Organization for Albany, did exactly this and it was successful. From 1993 to 1997, the CDTC brought together a wide range of stakeholders to develop a new approach to long-term planning. This effort involved workshops, conferences, nine topical task forces, and a yearlong public review. The result was a more integrated approach to long-term planning. New funding prioritization procedures were implemented acknowledging the importance of a variety of transportation options including: management and operations (M&O) strategies, transportation demand management (TDM), and smart growth.
  • Balance the distribution of funds in a way that is more consistent with the plan's stated priorities. One critical outcome of this long-range planning process was a new method for funding allocation. It defined the distribution of all regional funds among 17 project categories, consistent with the proportions agreed upon through the planning process. Projects in a given category could not be added to a new Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) if the current TIP projects exceeded the designated funding percentage for that category. For example, road construction projects have consistently used more than their target share of regional dollars because of a backlog of TIP projects in this category. Consequently, no new roadway construction projects have been added to the TIP, allowing other classes of projects (such as ITS) to come closer to their target share of regional funds.
  • Employ a project prioritization process that deliberately assigns more weight to projects that support regional M&O objectives, as outlined in the region's long-range plan. This approach encourages planners and operators to work together when assessing the cost-effectiveness of M&O strategies. In these cases, the likelihood that M&O programs receive significant funds depends on how M&O criteria are weighted relative to other prioritization criteria. At a minimum, this approach will assist stakeholders in clearly articulating where M&O investments should be positioned amongst the region's competing transportation needs.
Albany's experience suggests that successful transportation planning links funding of M&O strategies and ITS to the regions planning process. By balancing the funding distribution and prioritizing projects that support operations objectives, the region benefits from improved efficiency, productivity, and mobility.


Lesson Comments

No comments posted to date

Comment on this Lesson

To comment on this lesson, fill in the information below and click on submit. An asterisk (*) indicates a required field. Your name and email address, if provided, will not be posted, but are to contact you, if needed to clarify your comments.



Source

Getting More by Working Together - Opportunities for Linking Planning and Operations

Author: Ang-Olson, Jeffrey (ICF Consulting), Jocelyn Bauer (SAIC), Michael Grant (ICF Consulting), Jonathon Kass (ICF Consulting), John Mason (SAIC), Sergio Ostria (ICF Consulting)

Published By: USDOT

Source Date: 11/30/2004

EDL Number: 14071

Other Reference Number: FHWA-HOP-05-016

URL: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/lpo_ref_guide/index.htm

Other Lessons From this Source

Lesson Contacts

Lesson Contact(s):

Michael Grant
ICF International
703-218-2692
mgrant@icfi.com

Lesson Analyst:

Cheryl Lowrance
Noblis
202-863-2986
cheryl.lowrance
@noblis.org


Rating

Average User Rating

0 ( ratings)

Rate this Lesson

(click stars to rate)



Notes

Lesson of the Month for December, 2008 !


Application Areas

None defined

States

New York

Countries

United States

Systems Engineering

Show the V

None defined

Focus Areas

None defined

Goal Areas

Productivity

Keywords

None defined

Lesson ID: 2005-00032