Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program

One of the most praiseworthy achievements of the CDTC is the long range plan, New Vision for the Capital District, adopted in March 1997. The majority of long-range transportation strategies and project initiatives were generated through the MPO forum.

In approaching the New Visions effort, CDTC decided that it was time to step back and have a new look at where the Capital District wanted to go in the next 25 years, and then estimate the financial resources necessary to get there. Like other MPOs, the expressed hope of the New Visions plan was to ensure mobility, achieve intermodal integration, and enhance economic development potential in the area. New Visions, however, established a regional forum for the investigation of fundamental paradigms about how to achieve those goals. It was not to be "business as usual." The effort was built around a substantial and meaningful public participation process.

Nine task forces were established and charged with five overriding considerations: safety, land use, environmental impact, resource efficiency, and social justice/equality. The task forces were the heart of the New Visions effort. They were composed of interested parties (citizens and groups), CDTC staff, and Planning and Policy Committee representation. Many of the participants were stakeholders who were not previously represented at the CDTC table. The task forces operated by consensus. The process involved a large number of other transportation and related entities, both through the open meetings and through subcommittee membership. For example, the Freight Task force included representation from Canada Pacific Rail Services, Albany County Airport, Port of Albany, Conrail, UPS, NYS Motor Truck Association; the Urban Issues Task Force includes the Urban League of Albany and the Council of Albany Neighborhoods; the Transit Task Force includes the Environmental Planning Lobby, New York Public Interest Research Group, Chambers of Commerce, several consultants, AMTRAK and the Empire State Passenger Association.

In the New Visions plan, the MPO drew a figurative1996 "line in the sand" regarding the condition and benefits of the transportation system. CDTC required the plan to maintain or improve the overall transportation service quality from 1996 conditions and enhance the quality of life in the region; it was to reduce per-capita resource requirements related to provision, operation, use and mitigation of the impacts of the transportation system from 1996 per-capita costs - especially in reducing the total costs of crashes. The plan also was required to build strong urban, suburban, and rural communities, knitting them into a cohesive metropolitan area.

Early on, CDTC made a policy decision regarding the eventual allocation of resources:

1. Assure that basic system preservation needs are met first,
2. Seek progress across all fronts whenever funding levels exceeds the basic system preservation level, and
3. Pursue funding levels sufficient to permit full implementation of the entire plan of reasonable actions.

The New Visions plan established new CDTC policy regarding planning and investment: Transportation investment is based on function and need, not upon facility ownership. This results in an agreement to put all funds (NHS, CMAQ, STP) "on the table"; the best projects are selected according to CDTC investment strategy, and then money is assigned. This is noticeably different than how most MPOs approach the TIP or LRP: normally, Federal funds type determines project selection (e.g., NYSDOT owned facilities compete against themselves for NHS funding, and the locally owned facilities compete against each other for STP funding).

The plan lays out a performance based management strategy (e.g., painting bridges before they corrode, building more durable pavements, matching design treatment to road function rather than ownership or funding category). The New Visions plan is primarily a statement of principles, strategies and budgetary emphasis to guide more detailed TIP project decisions, not a series of lines on a map. It provides priorities and a budgetary framework for the 5-year TIP, and it serves as the basis for legislative discussions regarding programs and elimination of institutional and jurisdictional barriers. The plan does represent a break from "business as usual." A key concept is balance in the plan. It is a shift from heavy emphasis on routine pavement, bridge, and bus renewal and congestion mitigation to a carefully-structured balance among these traditional efforts and actions focused on travel safety, economic development and community enhancement, arterial management, bike and pedestrian accommodation, transit redesign and similar subjects. The plan calls for transportation investment that keeps pace with travel growth while simultaneously improving the transportation - land use linkage to keep the rate of travel growth manageable.

System preservation is defined in terms of maintaining existing facilities at the current conditions. Capacity and safety improvements and design upgrades carried out in conjunction with facility renewal are considered separately in the plan as discretionary improvements, similar to stand-alone capacity, safety, or bike/ped actions. It also distinguishes between system preservation and improvements in each of 17 categories. The plan establishes a policy that, after system preservation needs are met, "comparable progress" across-the-board in all 17 categories will be pursed. If necessary, CDTC will steer Federal funds to certain categories to ensure a balance investment program in the TIP. This same approach is taken with transit, where system preservation needs are defined in terms of maintaining the existing fleet and other equipment and facilities at current size and condition. Upgrades and expansions are treated as improvements. Funding priority is assigned to preservation, and transit improvements are advanced along with other desired improvements as funding permits.


Transportation Improvement Program

The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) development at CDTC is exemplary. It is a cooperative process where everyone comes to the table regardless of jurisdiction(including NYSDOT), and has their projects compete on merit regardless of type or funding category. The cooperative process has resulted in a balanced transportation program and considerable funding going to local needs. These projects are a direct result of the New Visions LRP and satisfy the goals and performance measures established under that effort.

The TIP relies heavily on a multimodal performance-based approach to project identification that takes into account community compatibility and economic development concerns. The last time CDTC went through a full TIP update, they went through an elaborate screening process for the candidate projects (over 200) submitted from 32 different sponsors. The initial screening of these project were: (a) consistent with New Visions and the Congestion Management System, (b) financially reasonable, and (c) met project specific criteria (i.e., safety). Of those projects that satisfied the above, the candidate projects would be analyzed through a more rigorous merit evaluation process. Life cycle cost and the use of performance based standards were part of the merit evaluation.

The CDTC process commendably departs from the traditional approach to addressing travel needs. CDTC strives first to maintain existing conditions and reduce the impact of forecasted travel by implementing demand management programs before considering capacity expansion; it uses the concept of risk assessment and tradeoff analysis in designing projects; and it is taking a fresh look at why travel occurs and why gridlock often does not. CDTC adopted its Congestion Management System (CMS) in December of 1995, building upon its 1993 report entitled Critical congestion Corridors in the Capital District. Congestion mitigation is directly related to CDTC's New Visions goals concerning mobility, wherein mobility is

1. Management of demand is preferable to accommodation of single-occupant demand growth.
2. Cost-effective operation actions are preferable to physical highway capacity expansion.
3. Land use management is critical to the protection of transportation system investment.
4. Capital projects designed to provide significant physical highway capacity expansion are appropriate congestion management actions only under certain conditions.
5. Significant physical highway capacity additions carried out in the context of major infrastructure renewal are appropriate only under certain conditions (use of risk assessment).
6. Incident management is essential to effective congestion management.
7. Corridor protection and official street mapping are necessary to preserve options.

The congestion management principles in the CMS plan have had an increasing influence in regional transportation decision-making. CMS, however, is considered in the context of everything else, rather than the driving force. In choosing projects to be on the TIP, CDTC still does not entertain a stand-alone congestion project, unless it is on the critical CMS list; or if its an infrastructure up for discussion, it has a better chance of selection if it is also on the critical list.

1. To support growth in economic activity and quality of life by limiting the amount of "excess delay" and
2. Implement demand management programs first, before performing capacity expansions.

System preservation is defined by CDTC in terms of maintaining existing facilities at current conditions. Capacity, safety improvements, and design upgrades carried out in conjunction with facility renewal are considered separately in the plan as discretionary improvements, similar to stand-alone capacity, safety or bike/pedestrian actions. Thus, the plan assigns first priority to the tightly defined system preservation needs, and it establishes a policy for steady progress across-the-board in the other categories. This approach is different than that taken in most MPOs, where the primary goal is to improve the condition of the infrastructure: CDTC seeks first to preserve existing infrastructure, and improvements are weighed equally with other types of objectives. This approach also is taken with transit, where system preservation needs are defined in terms of maintaining the existing fleet, other equipment and facilities at current size and condition. Upgrades and expansions are treated as improvements.

In making investment decisions on capacity aspects, particularly infrastructure reconstruction projects, CDTC has adopted a CMS-driven design approach, wherein if any significant capacity additions are carried out in the context of major infrastructure renewal (i.e., bridge replacement), these improvements are only appropriate under compelling conditions. In evaluating and selecting alternative designs, CDTC has embraced a tradeoff analysis that incorporates the concept of Risk Assessment. This analysis focuses on the opportunity cost of selecting alternative designs. Traditionally, facilities are designed to accommodate projected demand at acceptable levels-of service throughout the physical design life of the facility. Rather than routinely designing bridge structures and roads to meet traffic projections of 30 years or more in the future, a risk assessment approach examines the costs and benefits of alternative designs and makes capacity treatment an explicit choice. A risk assessment approach to bridge replacement would ask questions like: Does the 30-year traffic projection justify widening the bridge now? What is the project congestion risk of replacement in-kind? When considering various alternatives for improving a LOS E intersection, a risk assessment would evaluate the "risk" of providing for a future LOS D as opposed to improving the intersection to accommodate a LOS C. How much more does it cost to get a LOS of "xyz" in 2020? Do you invest funds solely based on peak hour VMT when that type of improvement is not needed during the rest of the day?

Thus, the design approach reaches a determination of facility design through a risk assessment (trade-off analysis) that focuses on the opportunity cost of selecting alternative designs. The trade-off frees resources to address current needs in other areas.

Public Involvement

CDTC's public involvement process continues to exemplify and embrace the intent of the regulations. The public continues to be engaged in all aspects of CDTC process. Throughout the processes, CDTC does an informal evaluation to access the successfulness of their outreach and make modifications. A good example of this are the public outreach activities that occurred on the Route 5 corridor study. The Route 5 corridor is the major corridor between the cities of Albany and Schenectady. This corridor has the highest transit ridership and was identified in the New Visions process as a corridor that had the potential for light rail transit improvements. The study was conducted to examine the various alternates, including streetscape improvements, transit alternatives in conjunction with or without roadway improvements and the light rail alternative. Since this study would lay the groundwork for the entire corridor improvement, it was critical to engage the public throughout the study process. An advisory group was formed including member of the business community, residents and other interested parties. Public outreach meetings were scheduled to discuss the study and these were to continue throughout the development process. Early on, it was identified that a more extensive outreach process was necessary in order to reach those individuals impacted by the corridor improvements. A survey form was sent out to every single resident/business along the Route 5 Corridor (within the ¼ mile of the corridor) in order to address the main issues. The response was overwhelming for maintaining the current level of congestion (ITS related improvements), with making the improved streetscaping/amendities and bus transit improvements. The survey was sent out in a brochure showing the length of the corridor and several computer-simulated designs showing the improvements. The next steps were to bring the survey results back to the advisory committee and hold additional outreach meetings to discuss the conclusions of the report. Currently, the TIP reflects some of the initial projects, including some of the ITS improvements and two improvement projects which will reflect the results of the study. Full implementation of the study results will take several years.

Another example of CDTC's public involvement extensive outreach was the effort use in conjunction with the development of New Visions. Traditionally, regional systems' planning is the transportation planning element most resistant to meaningful citizen participation. The issues are generally seen as highly technical, abstract, too long range to be of much concern and remote from the direct experience of the average layperson. By definition, regional planning must be concerned with large geographic areas, often encompassing numerous municipalities and counties, and it is difficult to engage in dialogue with individuals or groups over such great distances. CDTC put citizen and community input at the forefront of the New Visions effort. Approximately 50 public outreach meetings and 2 major conferences were held. CDTC formed 9 focused task forces in the New Visions efforts, allowing input from 100 individuals from the general public, business groups, environmental/interest groups, transportation-disadvantaged groups and communities. The New Visions effort also included an urban issues task force and outreach to the minority community (Urban League) to include minority concerns in the planning process.

The Perspective from Michigan

The Michigan participants included a representative from each of the Battle Creek, Flint, and Detroit MPOs and MDOT. All of them were management level in their organizations. The exchange provided a unique opportunity for one-on-one discussions that otherwise may not have been possible.

The Michigan participants were clearly impressed by the level of trust in Albany. It quickly became clear that the Staff Director, John Poorman, developed the organization to function in a truly cooperative culture during his twenty-plus years at CDTC. He takes an "influential approach" towards planning

1. The CDTC region is homogenous, with four counties that are similar in population and political strength. The central cities in each of the counties also share these characteristics.
2. The Staff Director and many of the staff have been at CDTC a long time and have developed good working relationships within the community. This long tenure of staff has resulted in a vast resource of cumulative institutional knowledge. This resource of talent has allowed a staff of thirteen to operate with extreme efficiency.
3. CDTC operates under consensus rules, only unanimous decisions are accepted.
4. There appears to be a great deal of coordination and interaction between the NYSDOT and FHWA.
5. Delegation and decentralization of duties is a format that appears to work well for the CDTC. This fosters ownership of the process and results by the staff, committee members and public.

The strength of the consensus model of cooperation is influential in the relationship between CDTC and the NYSDOT Regional Office. While the NYSDOT Regional Offices appear to have a great deal of autonomy and budgeting responsibility, the NYSDOT Regional Office encompassing CDTC recognizes the importance of working with the CDTC Policy committee in order to meet their goals.

The programming of projects in New York includes a 12-year horizon for the NYSDOT and a 5-year horizon for CDTD. The five-year TIP for CDTC is a rolling document that is updated every two years and is fiscally constrained for the entire five-year period. This longer program period, within the consensus framework, provides "security" for local implementing agencies to begin design work early so projects can be delivered in their scheduled year. Other key factors that Michigan participants identified as contributing to good program delivery are:

1. NYSDOT Central Office provides the Regional Offices the authority to develop their own program working closely with MPOs, as long as the regionwide and statewide goals are met.
2. The "all the money on the table" approach to programming projects allows all partners to compete on the same level and only the highest regional priorities emerge for programming.
3. Adopted procedures to allow NYSDOT to swap funds as needed for actually implementing the programmed projects once the program is set.
4. An annual letting cap is placed on projects so as not to expend the entire multi-year TIP funds prematurely.
5. CDTC allows federal dollars to be spent on engineering and ROW. This is another factor (above description) that fosters security for project development.
6. Basic system preservation is their top priority.
7. CDTC creation of the "Second Chance Funds", where some funds are set aside for local Enhancement projects to compete if they did not receive funding in the Statewide competition.
8. The New York "electronic STIP", although currently developed only to process amendments, appears to be a concept that could be developed in other States for added program efficiency and effectiveness.
9. The CDTC staff reviews all submitted TIP projects based on its own unit cost data and may alter a project's cost in the evaluation phase of the process if they deem the costs do not accurately reflect the likely expenditures necessary for the project.
10. The budget development sheet for each project compares the base level needed to complete only system preservation vs. any "desired" improvement which goes beyond just simple preservation, i.e. widening, adding wider shoulders, adding bike lanes, etc.
11. Projects are evaluated comprehensively based on a wide variety of concerns including whether there will be improvement in the function of a priority commercial or transit network.
12. There is an extensive pavement management system that guides the preservation efforts.
13. Documentation for each of the following components within the TIP development process has proven beneficial:
    1. revenue estimation
    2. project tracking
    3. amendment process, including administrative adjustments
    4. enhancement project prioritization
    5. CMAQ project prioritization
14. Comparative listing of the projects programmed since TEA-21 was enacted vs. what projects were actually built.
15. Summation of CMAQ and enhancement funds going to transit projects.
16. Adding "nontraditional" evaluation components to the ranking of TIP projects such as:
    1. Is the project on a freight route and will it help in freight delivery?
    2. Is the project on a transit line?

1. The New Visions plan put a greater emphasis on incorporating several land use issues into the transportation planning process other than just locations of trip generators, etc.
2. The investment of professional training for staff (Dale Carnegie course) to facilitate the nine (9) Task Forces was good foresight for effective plan development and can be used for other future activities.
3. Commitment for participation on the Task Forces was derived through CDTC stressing that "reasonable" recommendations would have a good likelihood of implementation.
4. The "workbook" developed by CDTC staff for the Task Force members helped organize the groups and define their purpose.
5. CDTC reviews the annual commitment of funds by project type in the TIP to that of the Transportation Plan. If they are not all comparably equal in incrementally meeting the goals of the plan, future TIP project submittals are required to be in specific categories. This is monitored on a continual basis.
6. The CDTC's extensive public involvement process also includes surveys on a consistent basis, including trade-off analysis.
7. CDTC future updates of the plan will include looking at the needs of different groups of people, i.e., income level, the elderly, telecommuters, etc., instead of the total aggregate numbers. This is viewed as a "customer service" approach and a different angle on equitable distribution of benefits.
8. In order to keep the public participating in the process, the CDTC emphasizes "your participation will matter".

1. If a capacity project solves a capacity problem, but creates a problem for other modes, it is not viewed as a positive alternative.
2. The emphasis on determining congestion is on the corridor level rather than "spot" locations or "choke points".
3. Concentrating on a modeling effort that only looks at a ten year horizon rather than twenty years reduces the "range of need" and makes the number of projects for the available resources more realistic.
4. Including quality of life considerations.
5. Looking at congestion in the context of doing everything else in life.

1. A study to integrate transportation and land use design.
2. A study to look at long range transportation finance issues in New York.
3. A study of how demographics and technology are going to change travel demand.
4. A study for new technology for data collection.
5. Funding for a state MPO secretariat/facilitator.
6. Training for MPO staff.