Previous

Home

Next

Pennsylvania

Planning Context

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PENNDOT) began an effort in 1997 to redesign the statewide transportation planning and programming processes. According to PENNDOT contacts, these efforts were to a great degree encouraged and supported by the federal emphasis in ISTEA and TEA-21 on comprehensive statewide planning. PENNDOT describes the redesigned process as "the most collaborative and cooperative planning and programming process in the nation" (Pennsylvania's 2003 Transportation Program Financial Guidance).

In a critical early step in redesign of the statewide planning process, PENNDOT organized a series of workshops with the state's fourteen MPOs and six Local Development Districts (LDDs). These workshops allowed State and regional agencies to exchange ideas and set the stage for the redesign.

PENNDOT next established an advisory committee of representatives from the MPOs, LDDs, FHWA, FTA, the public, the State Transportation Commission, and rail, freight, and transit organizations to examine and critique the existing statewide process and to recommend a redesign. The committee supported a longer term and more decentralized process than that previously employed, and recommended that the process have the following characteristics:

• Be based on trust and consensus between PENNDOT and its regional partners.
  • Emphasize good communication and coordination.
• Partcipants should share information and review, support, and develop the process through annual meetings of stakeholders.
  • Participants should jointly establish the annual agenda.
• Participants will formalize roles and responsibilities through MOUs.
• PENNDOT and its regional partners will jointly develop financial and other guidance on technical aspects of the redesigned processes.

The redesign effort resulted in the following "guiding principles" for the planning and programming process:

• Long-range plans of PENNDOT, the MPOs, and the LDDs cover 20 years; these plans function as the "gate keepers" for the programming process;
• The Commonwealth will develop a policy and corridor specific long-range plan;
• PENNDOT and the regional agencies will work together to develop staged long-range plans;
• The State program will include all modes (highway, transit, and intermodal projects initially, with aviation, rail freight, and others added in the future).

The redesign resulted in guidance that includes the following procedures:

• Updates to guidance will be issued jointly.
• The Governor and the Secretary, working with the State Transportation Commission, will resolve issues and priorities on a statewide basis.
• The LDDs will become Rural Planning Organizations with responsibilities for programming similar to those of MPOs. (Note: this was completed in 2003.)
• Public involvement will be used to strengthen planning and programming;
  • The MPOs and LDDs will be responsible for public involvement for Program updates;
  • The State Transportation Commission will evaluate public hearing practices.
• Programming products will be standardized and the programming process will be automated.
• Real time project data will be shared with all partners using a project management system.

PENNDOT and its regional partners discuss and update the guidance in annual meetings.

In implementing the revised coordinated process, PENNDOT faces challenges because of the mismatch of State district boundaries to those of the MPOs and LDDs. Other states face similar coordination difficulties.

The Statewide Transportation Planning Process and Financial Planning

Developing the Plan

The current Statewide Long Range Plan, PennPlan Moves! (PennPlan), covers a 25-year period and was finalized in 2000. The plan was developed to incorporate needs and priorities from the MPO and LDD's long-range plans. The directions in PennPlan will be reflected in future updates to the regional and local plans.

PennPlan is a multimodal policy plan, considering long-range trends, needs, and goals for highways and public transit, as well as intercity rail, air travel, and non-motorized modes.

PennPlan was based on extensive public involvement, including contacts with over 2000 citizens. Based on this outreach, PENNDOT identified two high-level priorities for all modes:

1. Safety
2. Maintenance

PennPlan identifies ten statewide goals:

1. Promote safety of the transportation system
2. Improve the environment
3. Retain jobs and expand economic opportunities
4. Make transportation decisions that support land use planning objectives
5. Maintain, upgrade, and improve the transportation system
6. Inform and involve the public and improve customer service
7. Advance regional and corridor-based planning
8. Develop transportation alternatives and manage demand
9. Promote smooth, easy connections between transportation alternatives
10. Ensure accessibility of the system and mobility for everyone

These ten goals provide the basis for two sets of objectives within PennPlan:

1. Statewide Objectives
   • Identifies 30 objectives.
   • Multiple objectives correspond to each goal.
   • Each objective tracks to one or more of the 10 goals.
   • Each objective has performance measures with quantified targets.
2. Corridor Level Objectives
   • Identifies 28 corridors of statewide importance (described in PennPlan as concepts rather than in detail).
   • Objectives for each corridor were set in cooperation with MPOs, LDDs, and other regional and local authorities.
   • A primary purpose is to ensure there is continuity for corridors in the plans of neighboring states.
   • The corridors are assessed at a technical level in Trends and Issues Reports.

PennPlan is available on-line.

PENNDOT issues annual reports on achievement of the goals and objectives in PennPlan (see section below on performance measures).

Financial Planning and Fiscal Constraint

The statewide planning priority, as expressed in PennPlan, is to maintain the existing system. Consistent with this priority, the target is to spend 80 percent of statewide funds on maintenance and 20 percent on capacity improvement. Of the total amount of highway funds, the Secretary can allocate up to 20 percent from a discretionary "spike fund" derived from Pennsylvania's portion of federal transportation money. These funds are provided for "spike projects" proposed by the MPOs and LDDs as priority investments that cannot be funded through routine regional funding allocations and would overwhelm other State and local resources.

PENNDOT provides financial guidance to its regional partners for preparing programs and is working on developing guidance for Long Range Plans. The financial guidance is based on the "guiding principles" described above.

PENNDOT also develops an annual Business Plan for its Districts. This plan translates statewide performance measures into strategies for each District.

PENNDOT works with other State and federal agencies to combine transportation resources with those available for other sectors to pursue common goals. PENNDOT representatives provided the example of its interaction with the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development. Funding from both agencies can be combined to examine community needs and opportunities for development. The agencies undertake collaborative studies on how communities can encourage interaction between land use and transportation decisions.

Priority Setting and Developing the STIP

The Pennsylvania STIP is designed to implement the vision, policies, goals, and objectives of the current Statewide Long Range Plan. As required by TEA-21, PENNDOT produces a four-year STIP, combining the 14 MPO TIPs with projects from the LDDs or rural counties. Projects in the metropolitan TIPs must be included in the STIP to be eligible for State funds. After the Governor endorses the STIP, it goes to USDOT for review and approval; this review includes determination of fiscal constraint as well as air quality conformity for non-attainment areas, including the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh metropolitan areas.

In a parallel but independent process to development of the STIP, PENNDOT is required by the State Legislature to produce a 12-Year Transportation Program that has been in effect for many years. Originally, PENNDOT had a six-year program but when the agency was unable to complete substantial parts of the program because of limited funds, it extended the program to twelve years.

The 12-Year Program:

• Meets additional State requirements;
• Replaced earlier requirements for a six-year Program;
• Is revised every two years;
• Presents the state's priority list of transportation projects;
• Includes projects funded solely by the State as well as those that combine state, local, and federal funds;
• Emphasizes the first four years of projects, similar to the STIP;
• Includes the TIPs as the first four-year period for highways and transit; and
• Is used to assess whether tax increases are necessary.

If required, the 12-Year Program can be amended through action of the State Transportation Commission at its quarterly meetings; the metropolitan TIPs can be amended at the MPO level. MPOs and LDDs amend their TIPs on a monthly basis and the overall program is formally updated every two years. The State does not prepare an annual STIP.

The redesigned collaborative approach to financial planning, including development of the MPO TIPs and LDD programs, is described in the Financial Guidance developed by PENNDOT and the regional agencies. This approach reflects the following:

• A conservative approach to estimate revenue.
  • Use of authorization levels instead of obligation limits.
• For post-TEA-21 years, use the same amounts as used in last year of TEA-21.
• Most funds are allocated regionally.
• Penn DOT reserves $25 million per year for economic development opportunities.
• A statewide Financial Guidance Work Group co-chaired by PENNDOT and a representative of the participating regional organizations provides input to set funding priorities.
  • Voluntary membership for regional organizations.
  • Committee examines all different parameters.
  • Produces various funding iterations - the first looks at different parameters; later iterations revisit the parameters.

The Pennsylvania programming process for development of the STIP and TIPs has highway and transit components. The Highway Program includes all Federal and State capital funds anticipated over the four year STIP duration. The programming process includes the following major funding categories:

• Several federal funding categories are combined into an overall "highway funds" category, including Interstate Maintenance (IM), Surface Transportation (STP), National Highway System, Minimum Guarantee (MG) Programs.
• TEA-21 funding for 2004-2006 is assumed at the level of 2003, pending reauthorization.
• Federal funds are based on authorization levels, with the understanding that usage will be adjusted based on obligation limitations.
• $25 million per year is reserved for economic development opportunities statewide to apportion at the Secretary's discretion (with collaboration with the Governor's Action Team, which is within the Department of Community and Economic Development).
• $25 million per year in federal funds is reserved to flex to transit agencies.
• Twenty percent of highway funds are reserved for the Secretary to distribute in consultation with the State Transportation Commission to offset the impact of high cost projects ("spikes" - see above).
• The remaining 80 percent is distributed among urban and rural areas based on the regions' averages of population, land area, and vehicle miles of travel. Funds are further subdivided in urban planning regions by lane area and vehicle miles and in rural regions by lane miles.
• Bridge funds are allocated to regions based on need factors through the state's Bridge Management System (i.e., share of statewide total of square feet of deck area of deficient bridges).
  • The decision to flex up to 50 percent of the bridge funds to other purposes is made at the local level in collaboration with PENNDOT.
• STP-Urban funds are allocated based on the federal formulas to areas over 200,000.
• Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds, distributed to states based on federal factors based on regional air quality classification, are distributed within the State to regions based on the same factors.
• STP-Enhancement funds are distributed based on population (80 percent) and land area (20 percent), with 20 percent reserved for the Secretary's discretionary use.
• The program is constrained by year for each MPO and LDD.
• PENNDOT works with MPOs and LDDs to assign projects and funds by year based on project readiness and availability of funds.
• Programming is based on cash flow management.
  • Low cost and short duration smaller projects have full funding listed in a single year.
  • Larger and longer-term projects have cost spread over several years, with conversion to cash flow in the years project activity is active.
• In combination, the above categories and other smaller ones not listed are considered each region's "fair share" of program funds. Other categories that have limitations external to the process described are considered in addition to the fair share.

The Transit Program is a combination of federal, state, and local funds. Federal funds are provided through TEA-21.

• As agreed to by PENNDOT and the regional and local agencies, $25 million of federal highway funds are flexed to transit as follows:
  • 70 percent to the Philadelphia area
  • 25 percent to the Pittsburgh area
  • Five percent to smaller transit operators
• Other federal funds are based on guaranteed authorizations, and are from urban formula, fixed guideway, new starts, and bus project programs.
• Capital assistance funded by State bonds is determined.

Pennsylvania has developed a consistent approach for MPOs to use in developing their TIPs that encourages consistency not only with the statewide planning process, but also with key aspects of the TEA-21 planning requirements. The process, including allocation of financial resources, involves the following steps:

• PENNDOT District representatives meet with MPO and LDD directors. Meeting participants evaluate and prioritize projects based on:
  • 17 criteria and 7 TEA-21 Planning Factors are used to prioritize projects in the regional areas. (See section below on MPO Perspective for discussion of the use of criteria.)
  • Proposed major capital projects should be consistent with the State long-range plan.
  • The expected split for capital projects of 80 percent for maintenance and 20 percent for expansion.
  • Needs are identified at the initial stage without limitation for financial constraint.
  • Emphasis is more on demonstrating needs than on balancing geographic suballocation.
  • Prioritization is established using performance measures.
  • Five percent of local funds are on the TIPs as a statewide average.
  • MPO members need to support each other on a priority; the intent is that this not be done in a "self-serving manner."
  • Process seeks regional perspectives to direct programming decisions toward regional needs.
• Municipalities submit transportation needs.
• Local programs may include a contingency item to cover cost overruns on some projects. It is a local decision to include a contingency element.
• In the last step at the statewide level, PENNDOT applies fiscal constraint, considering base allocation or "fair shares" provided to each area. PENNDOT central and district staff participate in this step.
  • State revenue is assumed to increase at 0.1 percent annually, which allows conservative programming.
  • PENNDOT staff determines final fiscal constraint.

One result of this process, as described by participants in the financial scan, is that PENNDOT allocates about 80 percent of statewide funds relying on decisions made at regional or metropolitan area levels.

PENNDOT uses the technique of "advance construction" (AC) extensively, carrying a balance of $400-$500 million of AC at any time. AC allows states to begin a project using non-federal funds while preserving eligibility for future Federal-Aid funds. FHWA determines that eligible projects technically qualify for Federal-Aid even though present or future Federal funds have not been committed to the projects. After an advance construction project is authorized, the State may convert the project to regular Federal-Aid funding provided these funds are made available for the project. AC provides more flexibility in financing projects and developing financial plans, particularly the STIP, and allows the State to begin construction on additional projects sooner. The PENNDOT projects typically are converted to Federal-Aid annually to match cash flow needs for each year of construction.

The MPO Perspective on Statewide Financial Planning

The federal team visit included discussions with representatives of the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, the regional planning agency for Cumberland, Dauphin, and Perry Counties, the City of Harrisburg, and Capital Area Transit, and the Harrisburg Area Transportation Study (HATS) the MPO for the Tri-County region. The representatives described how the agencies participate in the statewide planning process and financial planning and prepare the regional TIP. These perspectives provided the federal team with general insights into how Pennsylvania MPOs work with PENNDOT.

The Tri-County RPC and HATS staff described their approach to integrating land use and transportation planning as follows:

• An emphasis on comprehensive planning to link land use and transportation planning.
• Each of the area's three counties has a comprehensive plan and regional growth management plan that allocate growth among the counties.
• County and local level planning are included as key components of the metropolitan area process.
  • The member counties and local agencies work collaboratively rather than making autonomous regional decisions.
  • The process encourages consistency within local and county comprehensive plans and transportation plans.
• The area does not have urban growth boundaries.
• Planning is underway for a full-growth build-out incorporating State growth projections.

The Harrisburg area MPO develops a long-range plan that incorporates county and local plans. This plan is a basis and justification for projects in the MPO's TIP. The planning process:

• Includes a Vision Plan for the transportation system including expanded passenger rail.
• Develops and analyzes different planning scenarios, each with financial plans.
• Has developed priority programming using multiple criteria to score candidate projects.
• Funds few road projects locally because PENNDOT's responsibility includes many local roads.

In describing their evolving relationship with PENNDOT, the Harrisburg area representatives described PENNDOT as responsive both to MPO and statewide needs. The MPOs and other regional agencies play a role as "gatekeepers" in program development, consistent with the earlier reference in this summary.

The representatives described the Harrisburg area process as including the following steps:

• Meet with PENNDOT staff, including District representatives and other MPO and LDD directors.
  • Receive projected financial allocation at the planning meetings.
• Request municipalities to submit transportation needs.
  • No constraint on the local agencies at this initial stage.
• Apply formal criteria as a starting point to evaluate proposed projects. The criteria provide a formal, documented, and transparent process and allow the localities to track the progress of their projects.

The 17 criteria consist of:

• Nine based on federal requirements, including the seven TEA-21 planning factors, plus criteria to reflect air quality and environmental justice regulations.
• Five based on consistency with the HATS Regional Transportation Plan, Congestion Management Plan, Regional Growth Management Plan, funding history and new funds available, and the statewide PennPlan.
• Three based on local priorities: consistency with each county's comprehensive plan, local/sponsor priority, and local funding commitment.
• For each criterion, the project is assigned points based on "high, medium, or low impact."
• The total points result in numeric ranking to determine preliminary priority, which is refined based on eligibility for specific funding sources such as CMAQ, STP, or bridge.
• Fiscal constraint influences the timing of projects, as do "unforeseen matters," including politics.

This metropolitan planning process, with its links to statewide planning and Federal TEA-21 planning requirements, parallels that described more generally across the State in the STIP development section of this summary.

Use of Performance Measures

PENNDOT and its regional partners make extensive use of performance measures throughout the statewide planning process and financial planning. For example,

PennPlan, the current statewide long-range plan, is based on performance measures. Each objective under each goal has performance measures with quantified targets. For example,

• Objective 1: Adhere to "maintenance first" in allocation of resources.
  • Performance measure: percent of PENNDOT's resources expended on maintenance programs and projects.
  • Target: 80 percent
• Objective 4: Reduce number of fatalities and severity of crashes on highways.
  • Performance measure: Number of injuries, fatalities (age group and cause).
  • Target: All fatalities down 10 percent in 2002, 15 percent in 2004, 40 percent in 2020.
• Objective 6: Meet requirements of the Clean Air Act.
  • Performance measure: Number of highway funding sanctions.
  • Target: No sanctions imposed.
• Objective 13: Improve pavement ride quality.
  • Performance measure: International Roughness Index.
  • Target: reduce percent of interstate miles rated poor from under 5 percent in 2002 to less than 1 percent in 2005.
• Objective 29: Implement objectives in the Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
  • Performance measure: Number of objectives implemented.
  • Target: 100 percent of short-term objectives by December 31, 2004, 75 percent of long-term action items by December 31, 2010.

PENNDOT issues annual reports monitoring achievement of the goals and objectives in the PennPlan. The reports present progress in meeting PennPlan's statewide long-range objectives with performance measures, targets, and accomplishments, quantified when appropriate, otherwise in descriptive summaries. The reports also describe progress in meeting corridor objectives from PennPlan.

For example, the 2001 Achievement Report includes the following:

Objective: Adhere to maintenance first policies in allocation of financial resources.

Performance Measure: Percentage of PENNDOT resources expended on maintenance programs and projects.

Target: 80 percent.

Achievement: 78 percent for maintenance, up from 71 percent 2000 and 22 percent for system expansion. Target "not met."

Objective: Achieve goals in updated ITS Plan.

Performance Measure: Number of goals achieved.

Target: Achieve all goals in timely manner.

Achievement: Activities toward five of six goals are underway. Progress toward target on schedule.

Objective: Promote telecommuting as alternative to traditional work travel.

Performance Measure: Percentage of Pennsylvanians who work at home one or more days a week.

Target: Percentage increased annually from 2000 measurement of 18 percent.

Achievement: 37 percent worked at home one or more days per week. Target met.

The reports on annual performance are available on-line.

PENNDOT also develops an annual Business Plan for its Districts, which translates statewide performance measures into strategies for each District.

Observations from Pennsylvania DOT

PENNDOT and MPO participants in the meeting offered the following observations related to financial planning:

• State DOTs may experience resistance to applying fiscal constraint to set priorities and make decisions. Introducing fiscal constraint can require strong political will.
• It is important to have a clear and explicit financial planning process that can be defended in terms of benefits from supporting improved decisions.
• Broadly based and strong support from an active Technical Advisory Committee is critical.
• It is critical to establish trust among participants if the process is to be followed, supported and credible.
• The process should be open to participation and transparent.
• Rely on meeting financial targets instead of on over-programming, which reduces effectiveness and the rigor of the process.
• Participants expressed preference for flexibility as opposed to a restrictive and prescriptive approach to financial planning.

Contact

Dennis Lebo
dlebo@state.pa.us
Chief, Program Development
400 North Street, 6^th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17120