2040 Long Range Transportation Plan. Financial Summary

Transcription

1 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Financial Summary

2 FINANCIAL OUTLOOK Establishing MPO Transportation Plan fiscal forecasts for a twenty year planning horizon in today s transportation environment is a challenging endeavor. Federal transportation funds are typically authorized through six year legislative cycles. The current six year federal transportation legislation, SAFETEA-LU, expired on September 30, 2009 and has been extended several times on a temporary basis. It is unclear when the next transportation bill will pass but based on various draft bills that have been circulated significant changes to existing programs are expected. Funding levels also varied in the draft bills from 30 percent cuts to significant increases. Consistent with federal transportation regulations, MVRPC has developed planning level year of expenditure revenue projections and cost estimates through the year MVRPC projections include Federal, State, and local sources. These projections represent MVRPC s outlook on available future transportation program funding. MVRPC is projecting average growth in transportation program revenue at 2.1% and average project inflation at 2.1%. MVRPC s assumption is that over the Transportation Plan twenty-nine year planning horizon, existing revenue sources will keep pace with inflation. The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), a key transportation stakeholder and project implementer in the MVRPC Region, also develops fiscal projections for its statewide programs and projects. ODOT prepares biennial Business Plans as a strategic planning tool to define its mission, establish and assess statewide transportation system performance measures, and manage resources. A key component of the Business Plan is to project future revenue and track inflationary trends. ODOT s Business Plan reflects increasing disparity between future revenue estimates and inflation trends. Long term ODOT is projecting average annual growth in transportation program revenue at 0% and 3.0% for state and federal sources respectively and an annual cost of inflation of 5.0%. ODOT s Business Plan revenue forecasts differ from MVRPC s in that they is shorter term ( ) and are used to establish statewide program budgets. ODOT program budgets are established at amounts needed to operate and maintain the state transportation system and to finance existing project commitments. MVRPC s forecasts are planning level assessments of transportation revenue likely to be available to the Region during the twenty-plus year planning horizon. MVRPC s revenue forecasts match ODOT s for the time frame (current ). Between 2016 and 2017 ODOT s forecasts reflect a more conservative funding outlook than do MVRPC s. While ODOT s and MVRPC s short term fiscal forecasts use somewhat differing methodologies, both produce reasonable results for their intended uses. MVRPC also worked closely with the Regional Transit Agencies. Financial forecasts for the Greene County Transit Board (Greene CATs) were provided by the agency in 2011 dollars. Funding for the periods beyond the was inflated by MVRPC using the FY 2013 US Office of Management and Budget US Budget Economic Assumptions for Consumer Price Index for FY 2016 (2.1 percent per year) to project inflation into the future. Financial forecasts for the Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority and Miami County Transit were provided by each agency in year of expenditure dollars for the same periods, using the same (2.1 percent per year) inflation factor. For each mode, the costs of the 2012 through 2040 plan projects are balanced against projected revenues and, following SAFETEA-LU requirements, are expressed in year of expenditure dollars. The fiscal constraints for each transportation mode are summarized in Table 1.

3 Table 1 Fiscal Constraints of the 2040 LRTP Projects (in millions of Year of Expenditure dollars) Project Type Highway Transit Rideshare-Vanpool/Air Quality Bikeway and Pedestrian Transportation Enhancement Source: MVRPC Total Cost $2, $2, $32.68 $12.63 $6.14 Total Revenues Total Cost-Total Revenues $3, (i.e., fiscally constrained) $2, (i.e., fiscally constrained) $ (i.e., fiscally constrained) $ (i.e., fiscally constrained) $ (i.e., fiscally constrained) HIGHWAY COST AND REVENUE FORECASTS The LRTP s 29 year forecasted highway revenues were determined by considering two main funding sources: the and local funds. The includes funds from the Ohio Department of Transportation as well as other MPO-controlled funds. Local jurisdiction funds include Ohio Public Works funds and local ED/GE grants, in addition to local revenues. Detailed information about each program including eligibility, application process, funding levels, and contact information is available on the MVRPC website at: /transportation/financing/transportati on-infrastructure-program-facts-sheets The revenue forecast was completed by identifying the actual expenditures in years and using those as a base to calculate the year 2040 revenuee forecast. Therefore, the 29-year time period was separated into two increments. The first increment is from SFY 2012 to SFY 2015 and includes the actual programmed expenditures for that time period in the current. The second increment includes the remaining 25 years in the period and is further sub-divided into three additional increments for the purposes of applying inflationary factors,, and. The revenues outside the are based on average annual expenditures for years , excluding expenditures for I-75 Phase IA and IB, the segment of Warren I-75 widening project outside the MPO area, and ARRA related expenditures. ODOT also prepared a financial forecast for the MVRPC Region based on annual encumbrances for for state, federal, and local sources that excluded ARRA and emergency projects. The resulting annual averages are close to the MVRPC annual averages for federal and state sources. Local sources are significantly lower because ODOT did not account for local sources on local let projects and phases of projects fully funded by local funds. The estimates (SFY ) were determined by adding the amount of actual programmed expenditures in each funding source as shown in the. Expenditures were then divided between

4 operation/maintenance (42%) and capacity (58%) based on the actual mix of such projects in the and according to the categories described in Table 2. The forecasted revenues for the entire 29 year period 2040 LRTP were then determined by adding actual and local expenditures to the projected figures of the remaining 25 year forecasts from both and local sources. The results can be seen in Table 3. Table 2 Project Types in /LRTP Analysis Operation/Maintenance Simple Resurfacing (no widening) Reconstruction (no widening) Guardrail and Pavement Markers Bridge Repair/ Replacement (no additional Width or lanes) Signal Installation (without interconnect) Street Maintenance Sign Upgrades Source: MVRPC Capacity Resurfacing/Reconstruction (includes new lanes) Intersection Widenings/Improvements Signalization Improvements (including interconnects) Curve Relocations/Elimination Bridge Replacement or Realignment (on new alignment, new lanes or lane widening) Bikeways (widen curb lanes or separate paths) Other Safety Upgrades (which modify road profile or geometry) The next step in the revenue forecasting process was to determine how much of the total revenue would be available for the operation/maintenance versus capacity improvement projects. According to MVRPC s annual survey data, the Region is expending approximately 56% of its roadway expenditures on operation/maintenance and 44% on capacity type of projects. The final step involved using inflation rates to adjust revenues beyond the years, to year of expenditure dollars for the three LRTP periods, and. After consulting several sources (National Highway Construction Cost Index, Congressional Budget Office) and finding similar long term inflationary trends, MVRPC used the latest FY 2013 US Office of Management and Budget US Budget Economic Assumptions for Consumer Price Index for FY 2016 (2.1 percent per year) to project inflation into the future. This resulted in inflation factors of 1.19, 1.37, and 1.69 for years 2018, 2025 and 2035, the mid-years of the three Plan periods,, and. These same factors were applied to cost estimates for any projects outside the years, therefore assuming that in the long run costs and revenues will approach each other. In summary, Table 3 presents the result of the total revenue forecast of $6, million, followed by Figure 1 showing the breakdown between operation/maintenance ($3, million) and capacity improvement ($3, million) projects. The revenue sources listed in Tables 3 do not include transit operating (FTA Section 5307 or 5311; ODOT or local), transit capital (FTA Section 5307/5309 formula, 5309 discretionary, 5310; 5316, or 5317; ODOT or local), bikeway capital, or transportation enhancement funds.

5 Table Forecasted Revenues for O/M and Capacity Improvements by Funding Source (in millions of 2011 / Year of Expenditure dollars) General Source Specific Source Federal Various Sources State Match ODOT/MPO State (Including 100%) Controlled Funds Other Funds (Local/OPWC/Issue 2 to Match State & Federal Funds) Ohio Public Works Ohio Public Works Commission (L And Issue 2) Local Match Grant Local ED/GE Local Contribution 100% Local, Private, Other Federal Subtotal State Local, Other Total (2011 dollars) Total (Year of Expenditure dollars) Source: MVRPC Revenues Shortt Term Long Term Plan Annual 29 Plan / Average Year Plan , , , , , , , /2, , % 90% 80% 70% $479 $427 $982 $1,211 $3,099 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% $368 $488 $1,123 $1,385 $3,363 10% 0% SHORT TERM MEDIUM TERM LONG TERM FULL PLAN CAPACITY O/M Figure 1 Breakdown of 2040 Forecasted Revenues forr Operation/Maintenancee and Capacity (in millions of Year of Expenditure dollars)

6 TRANSIT SERVICEE Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority (GDRTA) The long range planning process used by GDRTA is based upon strategic plan priorities, as well as federal directives. This planning process has led to the current transit system and has also assisted in the development of the 2040 LRTP. GDRTA provides approximately 10 million passenger-trips per year through an extensive network of fixed routes, covering nearly 1,000 miles of directional roadways. Further, GDRTA s Transit Centers, located throughout Montgomery County, connect the central city and the suburban areas with bus services at centralized locations. The following assumptions were project lists, costs, and revenues: Service Configuration n made in developing the GDRTA Long Range Transportationn Plan Service area remains approximately the same GDRTA will continue its service evolution into a multiple hub/transfer concept GDRTA is in compliance with ADA and will continue to work with human services transportation coordination efforts Annual vehicle hours, vehicle miles, and ridershipp remain approximately constant Average fare to be modified consistent with inflation. Fleet fleet size With the fulll implementation of the regional hub plan and trolley plan, GDRTA anticipates a as follows, fleet will be replaced over the life of the plan; Electric Trolleys 57 Diesels 35 to Project Mobility Vehicles - 95 Simulated Streetcars remain at 4 Contingency 35 to 40 Diesels remain at 20 percent. Revenue Annual Section 5307/5309 formula capital allocation meets 80% of all future capital projects; STP/CMAQ allocation to GDRTA: none assumed; State allocation remains constant and can only be used for capital projects; Bonding capital: no new issues assumed; Sales tax: assumed to remain steady; Reserve: the availability of local reserve is predicated on the reserve base being built up to support the level of spending with the Long Range Plan being adjusted accordingly as funds are available; and Other (interest, advertising, rentals, etc.): will increase in order to seek other revenue sources to fund operations. Operating Costs Annual operating cost held constant and adjusted for inflation service goes to zero as the bonds are retired. while annual debt

7 The capital program, costs and revenues, and sources of revenues for are presented in detail in Tables 4 and 5. Table 4 GDRTA 2040 LRTP Costs and Revenues (in millions of Year of Expenditure dollars) Program 29 Year Plan Total Costs , , Capital Costs Operating Costs , Debt Service Total Revenues , , Specified Revenues , , Local Reserve Funds Source: GDRTA Table 5 GDRTA 2040 LRTP Sources of Revenues (in millions of Year of Expenditure dollars) Program 29 Year Plan Total Capital Funds Federal Funds - FTA FTA FTA Other GDRTA Capital Funds Total Operating Funds ,271.7 Local - Passenger Revenue Sales Tax , Other (interest, ads, misc.) Federal - Federal Federal Federal Other Grand Total - Revenue Sources , , Source: GDRTA

8 Greene County Transit Board (Greene CATS) The service is a combination of traditional demand responsive and flex services. It is wheelchair accessiblee and serves a mix of fare-paying County, and surrounding counties as needed. In addition, the Greene County and contract riders. The transitt service area is Greene County, with trips to Montgomery Transit Board works with local social services agencies to help coordinate social services transportation and to provide a wider range of transportation options to social services agencies. The following assumptions were made in developing the Greene CATS project lists, expenses and revenues for the 2040 LRTP, a summary of the Greene CATS 2040 expenses and revenues are presented in Tables 6 and 7. No change in the service area or in the amount of service provided No change in fares: traditional demand responsive service $1.50 each way in Greene; $6 each way to Montgomery; flex services $0.50 each way, $0.25 for elderly and disabled riders No change in FTA or ODOT formula funding or local revenue sources Continue to work with social services agencies to foster coordination and brokerage programs Table 6 Greene CATS 2040 LRTP Expenses (in millions of 2011 / Year of Expenditure dollars) Operations $3.12/yr $12.48 Vehicle replacement $0.079/vehicle; $ in 12-15, 6.8/yr Shop/tool purchase $0.005/yr Facility construction TE $0.012/yr $0.02 $0.80 $0.48 Safety/security projects in 2012; $0.79 $0.012/yr thereafter Planning $0.185/yr Other capital Total (2011) Total (YOE) $0.74 $0.64 $17.69 $17.69 Source: Greene CATs and MVRPC $15.60 $31.2 $2.69 $5.38 $0.03 $0.06 $0 $0 $0.06 $0.12 $0.06 $0.12 $0.93 $1.86 $0.01 $0.02 $19.38 $ $38.76 $23.06 $ $53.10 $31.2 $5.38 $0.06 $0 $0.12 $0.12 $1.86 $0.02 $38.76 $ Year Plan $90.48 $15.19 $0.17 $0.800 $0.78 $1.09 $5.39 $0.69 $ $159.36

9 Table 7 Greene CATS 2040 LRTP Revenues (in millions of 2011 / Year of Expenditure dollars) 29 Year Plan Passenger Fares $0.066/yr $0.26 $0.33 $0.66 $0.66 $1.91 FTA formula $1.24/yr $4.96 $6.20 $12.40 $12.40 $35.96 ODOT formula $0.03/yr $0.12 $0.15 $0.30 $0.30 $0.87 Social Service Contracts $7.48 $9.35 $18.70 $18.70 $54.23 $1.87/yr Local matches $3.73 $2.50 $5.00 $5.00 $16.23 Local land contribution $0.30 $0 $0 $0 $0.30 Other $0.17/yr $0.84 $0.85 $1.70 $1.70 $5.09 Total (2011) $17.69 $19.38 $38.76 $38.76 $ Total (YOE) $17.69 $23.06 $53.10 $65.50 $ Source: Greene CATs and MVRPC

10 Miami County Transit System Miami County Transit System provides demand responsive transit services within Miami County. Miami County Transit provides service six days a week. The County anticipates continued increases in additional benefits for the local human service organizations. Many of these organizations will now have the opportunity to utilize Miami County Transit as a method of expanding existing programs. The Miami County Commissioners plan to utilize a combination of federal, state, and local funds to financially support the program and its capital requirements as shown in Tables 8 and 9. Program Table 8 Miami County Transit 2040 LRTP Costs (in millions of Year of Expenditure dollars) 29 Year Plan - Small Buses (4/year) Shop/Office Equipment Security Equipment Transit Enhancements Planning Projects Operating Costs Total Source: Miami County Transit Program Table 9 Miami County Transit 2040 LRTP Revenues (in millions of Year of Expenditure dollars) 29 Year Plan - FTA Formula FTA Discretionary ODOT Formula ODOT Fare Assistance Fares, Contract Rev., Misc Local Support Total Source: Miami County Transit

11 Public Transit Human Services Transportation In the Dayton urbanized area, MVRPC in cooperation with the regional transit agencies took the lead in developing the Human Services Plan and is also the designated recipient for Section 5316 and The Human Services Plan was endorsed by the Board of Directors in April Financial forecasts for human services transportation are based on annual averages as shown in the current SFY and assumed to be in 2011 dollars. Based on the annual averages three plan periods were forecasted: , and The results can be seen in Table 10. Program Table Forecasted Cost and Revenues for Human Services Transportation (in millions of 2011 / Year of Expenditure dollars) Annual Average Cost/Revenues 29 Year Plan Section * Section Section Total (2011 dollars) Total (YOE dollars) Note: *Section 5310 funding is not forecasted since regional allocation varies annually due to statewide application process (based on 2011 awards on the MPO area) Source: MVRPC

12 SUSTAINABLE GROWTH INITIATIVES As the Region grows, it is essential to plan a comprehensive transportation system that serves the needs of travelers using all modes of transportation, allowing for reasonable mobility choices for all residents. The 2040 LRTP addresses future transportation needs by including programs and projects that provide alternatives to traditional forms of transportation. In addition to curtailing the demand for single occupancy vehicle travel therefore reducing congestion, harmful emissions, and the reliance on petroleum-based products, sustainable growth strategies can also spur economic development in existing communities, create strong places with a sense of community, and help preserve open space and environmentally sensitive areas. Financial forecasts for the programs and projects described in this chapter are based on annual averages as shown in the current SFY and are assumed to be in 2011 dollars. Based on the annual averages three plan periods were forecasted: , and The results can be seen in Table 11 below. As a result the scope of programs and projects will be constrained by available future revenue. It is also important to note that MVRPC does not forecast funding for the regional bikeway or transportation enhancement programs; these programs are funded as revenues become available. Program Table Forecasted Cost and Revenues for Sustainable Growth Strategies (in millions of 2011 / Year of Expenditure dollars) Annual Average Cost/Revenues 29 Year Plan Rideshare Vanpool Subsidy Air Quality Bikeway/Pedestrian Transp. Enhancement Total (2011 dollars) Total (YOE dollars) Source: MVRPC