Download Adobe© Reader™.

Peer Exchanges, Planning for a Better Tomorrow, Transportation Planning Capacity Building

Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program

— Peer Exchange Report —

Denver, CO: Best Practices Of Planning Partnerships
Peer-to-Peer Exchange

December 9-11, 2002

Table of Contents

The MCB Peer Exchange Program

The MCB Peer Exchange Program

The Peer-to-Peer Program is designed to assist state and local transportation officials and staff s that are seeking to optimize their professional skills in addressing the increasingly complex transportation issues that challenge metropolitan areas today.

The Peer-to-Peer Program provides technical exchanges through site visits and conferences on selected topics. In the future, other venues for Peer-to-Peer exchange will be supported.

Peer exchanges are designed to facilitate the sharing of ideas and best practices through structured discussions as well as informal meetings with peers and counterparts from other agencies and MPOs throughout the country.

Summaries of peer-to-peer discussions, which cover both policy level concerns and the hands-on technical elements of planning tasks, are available on this website for those seeking transportation technical assistance and guidance on a specific topic area.


Need for the Colorado Peer Exchange

The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the three Transportation Management Areas (Denver, Colorado Springs and Fort Collins) requested FHWA assistance in providing best practices of planning partnerships directed by TEA-21. It has been acknowledged by CDOT and the TMAs that significant issues exist which result in a less than perfect planning partnership. CDOT and the TMAs sought assistance through the Metropolitan Capacity Building Program’s Peer-to-Peer Program to identify ways that their partnership can be strengthened. In particular, the parties were interested in learning of successes in the following areas:

  • Revenue Forecasting
  • Cooperative Funding Allocation
  • Fiscal Constraint
  • Development of Plans and Programs
  • Making the RTP, TIP and UPWP Work
  • Cooperative Decision-making and Conflict Resolution

The FHWA Colorado Division office invited staff from departments of transportation and MPOs in Pennsylvania and Arizona, to discuss how they have successfully addressed the issues above. Both of these States experienced what Colorado is now facing and have taken positive steps to chart new processes in the spirit of TEA-21. To ensure the local planning perspective was presented, one TMA from each State was invited.

A three-day workshop was held in Denver on December 9-11, 2002. This report summarizes results from the first two days of the workshop, which focused on the invited States and TMAs explaining how they got to where they are today and how the new partnering is working. On December 11, participants explored topics that were of interest to the out of state participants, including: ITS Regional Architecture, the Denver Metro Visioning Planning Process, the TREX Design-Build Project, Regional Transportation District Funding, and the FasTracks Proposal. Go to __________________________ to view a summary of the discussion for December 11. The entire workshop provided the foundation for a facilitated executive session between the CDOT Executive Director, Planning Director and the Directors of the three TMAs, held on December 16.

Exchange Participants and Presenters

An agenda and list of attendees is included in the appendix to this report. Brief profiles of the organizations that requested the exchange, and of the peers that presented, are listed below: -

Colorado DOT

The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is responsible for a 9,122 mile highway system, including 3,698 bridges. Each year, this system handles over 23 billion vehicle miles of travel. CDOT is directed by the Transportation Commission, composed of 11commissioners who represent specific districts. CDOT is comprised of six engineering regions, centered in Aurora, Pueblo, Grand Jct., Greeley, Durango, and Denver.

Denver Regional COG

The Denver Regional Council of Governments, (DRCOG) is a voluntary association of 51 county and municipal governments in the greater Denver, Colorado, area. DRCOG was created in 1955 to bring together local governments to solve issues that cross jurisdictional-boundaries and to explore how the region can better work together. Local elected officials participate through the DRCOG Board of Directors, and staffs from local jurisdictions serve on multi-jurisdictional advisory committees and task forces. Each member local government has an elected official as its representative on the Board of Directors. The City and County of Denver, because it is both a city and a county, has two representatives. There are 52 member government representatives serving on the Board of Directors. In addition, the governor appoints three non-voting representatives to the Board.

Pikes Peak Area COG

Formed in 1967 under the Colorado laws regarding regional planning (CRS 30-28-105) and intergovernmental contracting (CRS 29-1-203), the Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments (PPACG) is a voluntary organization of local governments serving the region. . The governing body of PPACG is composed of elected officials from participating local governments, including Colorado Springs, and memberships are open to all general-purpose local governments (municipalities and counties) in the Pikes Peak region (comprised of El Paso, Park and Teller Counties). The Governing Board has 24 members.

North Front Range MPO

The North Front Range Transportation MPO was established in 1987. NFRMPO Council membership consists of one representative from 13 local governments, including the cities of Fort Collins, Greeley, and Loveland, and two state agencies, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission. The Council is assisted by a Technical Advisory Committee, which is composed of staff from each of the member entities.

Arizona DOT

The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) is headed by the Transportation Board, consisting of seven members appointed by the Governor. These members represent specific transportation districts. There are six regional transportation planning areas, represented as follows: the Central Arizona Association of Governments (CAAG) and SouthEastern Government Organization (SEAGO); the Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization (FMPO) and Northern Arizona Council of Governments; the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG); the Pima Association of Governments (PAG); the Western Arizona Council of Governments (WACOG); and the Yuma Metropolitan Planning Organization (YMPO).

Maricopa County Association of Governments

The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) is both a Council of Governments that serves as the regional agency for the metropolitan Phoenix area and is also the designated MPO. The area served is approximately 9,000 square miles with 590 fixed transit routes. The MAG membership currently consists of the 24 incorporated cities and towns within Maricopa County, the Gila River Indian Community, the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community, Maricopa County, the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and the Citizens Transportation Oversight Committee (CTOC).

Pennsylvania DOT

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation is comprised of twelve (12) engineering districts. The Department serves a population of just over 12 million. PennDOT is responsible for 40,500 miles of highways and 25,000 bridges. Overall, highways throughout the state see 100.4 billion vehicle miles traveled annually.

Tri County Regional Planning Commission

The TCRPC originated in 1956, with the formation of the "Regional Planning Commission of Greater Harrisburg". In conjunction with these laws and the Federal Highway Act, the Regional Planning Commission of Greater Harrisburg expanded its planning area and scope in 1965 to include all the communities in Cumberland and Dauphin Counties. A primary reason for this realignment was to meet the Municipal Planning Organization (MPO) requirements of the Federal Highway Administration for consideration of highway transportation related funds. In 1966, Perry County was added to create the three county arrangements, which is present today. The alignment also remained consistent with the established Standard metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) of the time. Along with a name change to the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, a total of 104 municipalities and the three member counties became part of the regional planning program.

Best Practices Shared by Peers

A. Reengineering Initiatives

Both peer presenters went through a substantial re-engineering effort, responding to recognized issues in the transportation planning processes, including relationships between each state’s department of transportation and regional planning agencies.

Beginning in 1997, Pennsylvania went through a major reengineering to reduce misunderstanding about planning processes, to address perceptions that some areas weren’t receiving their fair share of transportation funds, and to better coordinate planning, with particular attention to public involvement. A Design Improvement Team was established, representing PENNDOT, the Pennsylvania Transportation Commission, MPOs, LDDS, transit, rail and aviation interests, the FHWA, the FTA, and others. This team established 15 guiding principles and eight work groups to develop the details associated with long range planning and short range programming (see appendix for description of the work groups). Key workgroup dynamics identified by the peer exchange presenters include:

  • Consensus upfront on assumptions and revenues,
  • Joint development of planning and programming policies,
  • Monitoring of the program, and
  • After-action report card.

Beginning in 1999, Arizona transportation stakeholders gathered to examine the existing transportation planning and programming process and to reach a consensus on change. The primary objective was to find a way to work cooperatively—rather than confrontationally—to plan and program transportation projects. Like participants to the Pennsylvania reengineering effort the Arizona effort, referred to as the “Casa Grande Resolves”, established a number of principles to guide more detailed planning and programming (see appendix for details). The major institutional innovation was the creation of a Resource Allocation Advisory Committee (RAAC), which advises the ADOTS Director. The RAAC responsibilities are as follows:

  • Review the long range plan
  • Review overall policy and guidance
  • Develop funding estimates for MAG, PAG, Rural counties and major program areas, and
  • Recommend allocations to MAG and PAG areas, rural counties, and allocation to functional areas.

Members include four representatives from ADOT, the Executive Directors of the Maricopa and Pima County TMAs, one representative each from a rural Council of Governments and MPO, and one transit operator from either Maricopa or Pima County. Peer exchange presenters agreed that the RAAC has proven a very successful innovation. The keys to that success include certain “ground rules” for how the RAAC functions.

  • The group works only on a consensus basis, not a majority vote basis.
  • Once consensus is reached, the members agree that they will go back and present the consensus position to their policy boards.
  • No party may make unilateral decisions.
  • Either party (ADOT or others) can block a project.
  • All funds are considered.
  • The group meets regularly (quarterly).

Both states noted that the new processes were, at times, somewhat contentious. In Arizona, there was not initially agreement on how to determine allocation formulas – which factors should be used. (Population versus lane miles versus economic development, etc.) However, as the level of trust increased, and all began to feel comfortable that decisions would be carried forward beyond a given meeting, the negotiations became much easier. Pennsylvania indicated that an “After actions report” was developed and was key to reminding everyone what steps were agreed to by staff.

B. Revenue forecasting

Presenters explained how revenues are forecast for purposes of the TIP. Peers from both states noted the importance of strong leadership.

In Pennsylvania, financial guidance comes from the Financial Workgroup. It shows the different funding sources and range of revenue that each area can expect. Some are formula driven, based on population, VMT and system miles.

Each MPO and PENNDOT comes to consensus on the total federal funding, the allocation to the regions, the assumptions and the total TIP revenue package. The PENNDOT then works with the MPOs to be sure that they agree on the financial assumptions.

In Arizona, ADOT staff run econometric and risk assessment model for state funds (Highway Users Revenue Funds, state gas tax, and the Regional Area Road Fund). They rely on AASHTO and FHWA for projections of federal aid. The RAAC then uses this input to prepare revenue forecasts for the TIP (a five year period).

The peer exchange presenters from Arizona observed that the RAAC enjoys a high level of credibility with stakeholders. Still, there have been occasions where the various transportation planning agencies have returned to the group to question certain revenue projections The RAAC’s success depends both on the professional quality of its members and on communication with Arizona transportation stakeholders.

Similarly, the representative from PENNDOT observed that the process, led by the Financial Guidance workgroup, demands commitment by leaders, especially at PENNDOT. Eventually, the practices should become so ingrained that no one person can obstruct the process.

C. Cooperative funding allocation

Presenters detailed the procedures by which available funding is allocated. The viability of linking performance measures to allocations was discussed.

Pennsylvania’s 2003 Transportation Program Financial Guidance document provides the framework for distributing funding. This document was prepared by the Financial Working Group and then brought to each of the members’ respective policy boards. Available funds are allocated as follows (all figures are for 2003):

  • Federal Highway funds
    • $25 million/year for economic development opportunities statewide
    • $25 million/year for transit
    • 20% of the remaining goes for the SPIKE program (covers impact of high cost projects that are beyond the region’s normal allocation). The PENNDOT Director and Transportation Commission make decisions on these funds.
    • Remaining 80% goes to urban and rural areas based on population, lane miles and VMT.
  • CMAQ and Surface transportation program-urban (STU) funding is allocated based on federal formulas.
  • Bridge funds are distributed based on the state’s Bridge Management System.
  • Enhancements funding is distributed 80% by population and land area formula and 20% by PENNDOT discretion for projects that have statewide impact or for projects that span regions.
  • Safety funds are allocated by formula based on number of accidents and number of grade crossings.

All of these funds together make up a region’s “fair share”. Discretionary allocations (i.e. Earmarks, FAI and Appalachia funding) are added on top of that amount. Transit funds also are on top of that amount, and are typically distributed by formula by the federal agencies.

PENNDOT sets goals for how much they will spend on maintenance versus expansion. They have extensive discussions with the regions about this.

In Arizona, certain funding programs go to the counties and urban areas by formula (called major projects); others are distributed statewide based on need (called subprograms). A few very minor amounts of funding go to the ADOT districts for minor programs.

Funding Distribution Method:

  • First, all funding is pooled and distributed to counties and regions based on the RACC funding distribution agreement, which considers the share of federal funding generated by a region.
  • Then an amount for subprograms (system maintenance and system preservation) is taken off of each region’s amount based on the five-year rolling average of expenditures in those categories for each region.
  • The amount remaining goes to system improvements (primarily major projects).

Half of enhancements funding goes to local jurisdiction requests, half to ADOT requests. There is a committee that makes final funding recommendations.

ADOT and its stakeholders attempted to come up with some performance based criteria for allocating funding. They realized, though that this would be a long process, since the criteria that help urban areas tend to hurt rural areas and vice versa. This also requires a really strong set of data to establish performance measures. Similarly, they’ve attempted to do performance measures in Pennsylvania, but have not been very successful in implementing them for resource allocation.

D. Fiscal constraint

Presenters shared their methods of determining fiscal constraint, an element of particular interest to the FHWA. Discussion included challenges that commonly arise.

PENNDOT has worked closely with FHWA in developing acceptable and effective procedures for fiscal constraint. Two sets of agreements specify those procedures. The Procedures for TIP Administrative Actions agreement is signed by PENNDOT, the regional transit agency and the relevant MPO. The Procedures for STIP and TIP Modifications agreement is signed by PENNDOT, FHWA and FTA.

PENNDOT provides project cost estimates, but representatives from Pennsylvania at the peer exchange indicated that this process emphasizes cooperation and open communication. The Procedures for STIP and TIP Modifications agreement includes a section specifying that PENNDOT provide a TIP Funds Management Report to each planning partner and to FHWA and FTA within 45 days of the enactment of annual federal appropriations.

In Arizona, the RAAC develops the resource allocations and then uses those to develop financial constraint. These “control totals” are arrived at cooperatively through the RAAC. For the TIP, they develop projections based on current year funding.

Two issues associated with fiscal constraint are how to address assumptions about locally generated revenue, and how to respond to changes in a given project’s cost or scope. Arizona peer exchange participants reported that ADOT and its partners have worked cooperatively to address local revenue assumptions. In one instance, the State and an MPO hired an independent economist to project locally generated revenues.

Cost increases or scope changes are common. In Pennsylvania, the level of review any change must go through depends on the nature of the project. Some changes may require delaying another project; others may have conformity implications. Here as in other contexts, maintaining open communication is essential. PENNDOT has tried to be helpful when there are large cost overruns, in some instances providing funding to keep a project viable. The state also continually provides a status report on what is funded and how far along the process each of the projects is. In an effort to manage cost overruns, one Arizona MPO has tried to define with some precision what constitutes a change in scope.


E. Development of plans and programs

Presenters discussed how they develop transportation plans and programs, and how the goal of integrating regional and statewide priorities is achieved.

Project prioritization begins at the county level. For those projects that are on the state highway system, PENNDOT gets involved in getting them into the TIP. These projects also are compared to regional growth management strategy. Corridor studies also play into project identification. PENNDOT and the regional interests need to work together from the start to make sure that what comes out of a corridor study translates well into the county plans and ultimately into the TIP.

The MPOs solicit projects from local entities for TIP projects. Each MPO has its own prioritization process. The Harrisburg Area Transportation Study ranks each project based on a matrix of criteria that include TEA-21 planning factors, regional factors, and local factors. They first look at projects that have carried over from previous TIPs that they want to continue. Any remaining funding goes to new projects based on a public solicitation of projects. The TIP projects are derived from the long-range transportation plan.

The TIP automatically becomes a part of the STIP. In the Harrisburg MPO, the PENNDOT projects will be prioritized just like any other project. Also PENNDOT will have a seat at the table when reviewing projects.

In Arizona, the Case Grande Resolves reengineering effort set up Project Identification Committees to assist in the TIP development process. In the state’s two TMAs (Maricopa and Pima counties), Modal Committees compile, review and prioritize a list of projects requested by local jurisdictions. ADOT is represented on each Modal Committee. Programming recommendations are forwarded to a Transportation Review Committee, which develops a draft TIP. The TMA council approves the TIP for public comment. The TMA and ADOT Board then hold a Joint Public Hearing on the TIP and state program in that region.

For rural areas, ADOT tends to lead the TIP development process. The COGs/MPOs and respective ADOT District Engineers collaboratively review tentative priorities, with public input as context. An ADOT advisory committee, the District Engineer and staff from the COGs/MPOs then select projects cooperatively. Projects that will comprise the Regional TIP are ultimately approved by the Regional Council or Executive Board. Regional TIP projects are included as an element of the STIP.

F. Making plans work

Peer exchange participants from both states observed that communication, education, and public involvement are the keys to making transportation plans work. The exchange presenters highlighted a number of techniques that have been successful.

Representatives from Pennsylvania shared several particular practices of PENNDOT and the Harrisburg MPO that helps make the transportation plans work:

  • PENNDOT provides a password-protected web page that all project sponsors can get into and share information about project status and issues.
  • PENNDOT provides accident data, financial guidance, corridor study findings, and significant technical assistance
  • PENNDOT has a modeling staff to assist those areas that lack the ability to do the air quality conformity analysis.
  • The Harrisburg area MPO distributes a newsletter to over 600 organizations that reports on transportation, land use and community/economic development.
  • All local planning meetings are televised
  • The Harrisburg area MPO does significant public outreach and promotions: Rideshare on-line application, provide information and matches on ridesharing, transit, telework, flextime, transit checks, commuting alternative.

Peers from Arizona also emphasized the importance of ongoing collaboration and communication among stakeholders. Specific examples cited by participants include the following:

  • ADOT periodically holds partnering sessions to make sure that they can work through challenges. It has also helped to establish more of a personal relationship together between ADOT and other planning agencies.
  • The Maricopa County Association of Governments (MAG) has a Transportation Review Committee (TRC) that includes traffic engineers, staff from various cities, and ADOT intergovernmental liaisons. TRC members come together regularly to discuss issues.
  • ADOT facilitates periodic meetings of COG Directors, which has created stronger relationships between urban and rural interests.
  • A Rural Summit has been held over the last several years to share information. It has included an open forum for discussions about what constitutes “fair-share”.
  • The ADOT Board and MAG Regional Council members annually hold an open meeting with the public.
  • ADOT technical staff and MAG planning staff meet monthly.
  • Within each TMA, a committee of City Managers meets regularly to hear issues from the technical committee and refer issues to the Regional Council. The ADOT Director sits on this committee.

G. Partnering and conflict resolution

Both peer states have recognized the value of partnering and need for ongoing maintenance of partner relationships. They shared their best practices for addressing issues and conflict among partners.

PENNDOT conducts partnering sessions. As issues arise, the agency tries to hold meetings to reach a resolution before trouble really starts. Relationships between the regions and PENNDOT are helped by the fact that a PENNDOT District Engineer sits on each MPO Board. The reengineering effort that yielded the state’s current planning processes is the single best illustration of partnering and conflict resolution as practiced among transportation planning partners stakeholders in Pennsylvania. Over the course of five days, participants established principles that are now in force and defined the workgroups that have become the backbone of cooperative planning in the state.

The Arizona Department of Transportation has made partnering and conflict resolution one of its leading priorities, and has been quite progressive in the development of programs and support for partnering efforts. ADOT has an office dedicated to coordinating partnering sessions. The ADOT Partnering Program includes support services, partnering workshops, education, events and forums, and administrative support.

The effort began in 1991, to smooth working relationships between ADOT and contractors and improve the efficiency of projects. Partnering work was subsequently expanded to relationships with other agencies, cities, MPOs (specifically MAG), design development process w/consultants and with engineers and planners within ADOT.

ADOT’s relationship with the Phoneix-area MPO (MAG) was enhanced via a two day partnering workshop. The workshop identified a number of priorities for continuing action that included:

  • Balance ADOT desire to protect Director’s Time with MAG’s desire to have the Director involved on all issues
  • Define more clearly roles and responsibilities of each agency.
  • Adopt attitude of no surprises with partner agencies.
  • Define at what point the MPO needs to be involved in ADOT process.
  • Make more ADOT information available on projects.

ADOT credits its partnering and conflict resolution efforts with a variety of benefits, including the following (since 1991):

  • Over 1000 completed projects
  • Saved 1300 contract days
  • 7% reduction in project completion time
  • Savings of $28 million in design costs
  • Savings of $3 billion in total construction
  • Only three arbitrated construction claims since July 1996


Lessons Learned from the Peer Exchange

Participants in the peer exchange articulated a series of summary observations, based on material presented by representatives from Pennsylvania and Arizona, and on the discussions that followed.

1. In both Pennsylvania and Arizona, transportation partners participated in a reengineering event that led to long-term changes in planning processes.

2. That reengineering and the processes that followed were a product of the joint respect between the parties in Arizona and Pennsylvania. Participants regarded each other as equal partners at the table.

3. Certain qualities define effective partnership among stakeholders:

  • Consensus upfront
  • Joint development of procedures and issue identification
  • All at the table
  • Report back and monitoring
  • Sharing of information
  • Seek mutual interest
  • No unilateral decisions
  • Understand interests of others
  • Ongoing process

4. Compromise between interests was necessary. In both Pennsylvania and Arizona, the “sides” (DOT and others) had to give something up. They all got something, but had to give up other things as well.

5. Strong leadership, especially at the respective departments of transportation, was essential to improving the relationship among transportation planning partners.

6. Leadership by individuals must lead to institutionalization, in particular, putting processes and procedures in place to establish financial management guidance.

7. How performance is defined and then reflected in the project prioritization process is critical. It also helps to establish credibility with the public.

8. All projects, even those initiated by the state department of transportation, should be regarded as “our” projects, mutually recognized by all partners as necessary and important. The corollary to this understanding is the recognition that any partner could stop the process that moves projects forward.

9. Many of the difficulties experienced by transportation planning partners relate in some way to two challenges: connecting land use and transportation planning, and integrating the statewide plan with a regional plan.


Peer Exchange Agenda

Peer Exchange Participants

Pat Baskin, Colorado DOT
Brad Beckham, Colorado DOT
Dave Beckhouse, FTA
John Boiney, US DOT Volpe NTSC
James Bourey, Formerly Maricopa County AG
Steve Cook, Denver Regional COG
Cliff Davidson, North Front Range MPO
Chuck Eaton, Arizona DOT
Charmaine Farnan, FHWA
Jennifer Finch, Colorado DOT
Laurie Freedle, Colorado DOT
Bill Haas, FHWA
Kathie Kelly, FHWA-Colorado
Lizzie Kemp, Colorado DOT
Dennis Lebo, Pennsylvania DOT
Robert MacDonald, Pikes Peak AG
Karin McGowan, Denver Regional COG
Vicky McLane, North Front Range MPO
Mike Meyer, George Tech University
Gregg Mugele, Colorado DOT
George Scheurenstuhl, Denver Regional COG
Gloria Shepherd, FHWA
Robin Smith, FHWA
James Szymborski, Harrisburg, PA MPO
Bob Torres, Colorado DOT
Fred Van Antwerp, Pikes Peak AG
Bill Vidal, Denver Regional COG
Tisha Weichmann, US DOT Volpe NTSC

Pennsylvania Work Groups

The initial reengineering effort produced ten work groups:

  • General/procedural guidance
  • Financial guidance
  • Workshop/conference planning
  • Consensus building/facilitation
  • Automation/computerization
  • Legal/regulatory changes
  • Statewide long range planning
  • Modal integration
  • “Easy to understand” documents
  • Oversight

Other groups were then formed, specifically to assist with development of the 2003 Program and to facilitate information sharing:

  • Geographic Information Systems
  • Intelligent Transportation Systems


Arizona “Case Grande” Principles

The Case Grande Resolves participants agreed to seven guiding principles for Arizona’s transportation planning and programming process:

1. There will be one multimodal transportation planning process for each region that is seamless to the public which includes early and regular dialogue and interaction at the state and regional level and recognizes the needs of state, local and tribal governments and regional organizations.

2. It will be a process that encourages early and frequent public participation and stakeholder involvement and that meets the requirements of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and other state and federal planning requirements.

3. The policy and transportation objectives of the state, regional and local plans will form the foundation for the statewide Long-Range Transportation Plan (20 years).

4. The statewide Five-Year Transportation Plan and Programs will be based on clearly defined and agreed to information and assumptions including the resources available, performance measures, and other technical information.

5. Each project programmed (within the Five-Year Plan) shall be linked to the statewide Long-Range transpiration Plan with each project selected to achieve one or more of the Plan objectives. The program will represent an equitable allocation of resources.

6. Implementation of the Plan and Program shall be monitored using a common database of regularly updated program information and allocations.

7. There will be a shared responsibility by state, local and tribal governments and regional organizations to ensure that Plan and Program implementation meets the transportation needs of the people of Arizona.

back to top

FHWA Home   |  FTA Home   |  Privacy Statement   |  Website Feedback
US DOT Logo  United States Department of Transportation