TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. BE SAFE. C R I le Si 1ART UTP PROGRAMMING. Laredo District

Transcription

1 I ~ TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BE SAFE. C R I le Si 1ART UTP PROGRAMMING Laredo District

2 Funding Category Project Selection 1. Preventive Maintenance and Projects selected by districts. The Texas Transportation Commission allocates funds through a formula Rehabilitation allocation program. 2. Metropolitan and Urban Area Corridors Projects selected by MPOs in consultation with TxDOT. The Texas Transportation Commission allocates funds through a formula allocation program. 3. Nontraditionally Funded Projects determined by legislation, Texas Transportation Commission approved Minute Order, and local government commitments. Selections based on engineering analysis of projects on three corridor types: 4. Statewide Connectivity Corridor Mobility corridorsbased on congestion Projects Connectivity corridorstwolane roadways requiring upgrade to fourlane divided roadways Strategic corridorsstrategic corridor additions to the state highway network. 5. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Projects selected by MPOs in consultation with TxDOT. The Texas Transportation Commision Commission Improvement allocates funds distributed by population and weighted by air quality severity to nonattainment areas. Projects selected by the Bridge Division (BRG) based on a listing of eligible bridges prioritized first by 6. Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Deficiency Categorization. Railroad Grade Separation projects are selected based on a costbenefit index rating. Projects selected by MPOs operating in transportation management areas, in consultation with TxDOT. The 7. Metropolitan Mobility/ Rehabilitation Texas Transportation Commission allocates funds through a federal program, distributed to MPOs with an urbanized area population of 200,000 or greater (transportation management areas [TMAs])... March 21, 2016 : : 2 ;. :...:...

3 Funding Category Project Selection 8. Safety Improvements Projects selected statewide by federally mandated safety indices and prioritized listing 9. Transportation Alternatives 9. Transportation Enhancements The Texas Transportation Commission, by written order, selects projects for funding under a TxDOTadministered TAP call for projects. Local entities nominate projects, and TxDOT, in consultation with FHWA, evaluates for eligibility and makes recommendations to the commission. 10. Coordinated Border Infrastructure CBI projects selected by districts with FHWA review and approval. Discretionary funds are congressionally Program designated..c " The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) selects State Park Road projects in coordination with districts. 10. Supplemental Transportation The TxDOT Rail Division in coordination with districts selects Railroad Grade Crossing Replan king and Railroad Projects:State Park Roads, Railroad Grade Signal Maintenance projects. Landscape Incentive Awards are distributed to 10 locations based on the results of Crossing, Replanking, Railroad Signal the Keep Texas Beautiful Awards Program and managed by the TxDOT Design Division. Green Ribbon Allocations Maintenance, Landscape Incentive Awards, are based on onehalf percent of the estimated letting capacity for the TxDOT districts that contain air quality Green Ribbon Landscape Improvement, nonattainment or near non~attainment counties and managed by the TxDOT Design Division. Curb Ramp Curb Ramp projects are selected based managed by the TxDOT Design Division. Curb Ramp projects are selected basedon conditions of curb ramps or location of intersections without ramps and managed by the Design Division. 11. District Discretionary Projects selected by districts. The Texas Transportation Commission allocatesfunds through a formula allocation program. A minimum $2.5 million allocationgoes to each district per legislative mandate. 12. Strategic Priority The Texas Transportation Commission selects projects. March 21,2016 ~

4 FY Programming Information by Category Fund in.!!: Categories FY2016 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Category 1 Rehab and Maint $ 43,890,000 $ 47,310,000 $ 42,500,000 $ 40,970,000 s 40,970,000 s 40,970,000 s 40,970,000 s 40,970,000 s 40,970,000 s 40,970,000 Category 1 Energy Sector Initiative $ 19,580,000 $ $ $ $ $ s s $ $ Category 1 Prop 1 s 8,910,000 s 4,670,000 s 4,670,000 s 4,670,000 s 4,670,000 s 4,670,000 s 4,670,000 s 4,670,000 s 4,670,000 s 4,670,000 Category 2 Metro and Urban Corridor s s $ 6,830,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Category 2MPO Proposition 1 s 4,482,000 $ 2,347,000 s 2,347,000 s 2,347,000 $ 2,347,000 s 2,347,000 s 2,347,000 s 2,347,000 $ 2,347,000 $ 2,347,000 Category 3 Non Traditional Funded $ $. $ s $ $ $. s $ $ Category 4 Connectivity $ s s. s s $ $ $ $ $ Category 4 Proposition 1 $ 5,640,000 $ 2,952,000 $ 2,952,000 $ 2,952,000 s 2,952,000 $ 2,952,000 s 2,952,000 s 2,952,000 s 2,952,000 s 2,952,000 Category 6 Bridge Replacement/Rehab $ 1,802,000 $ $ $. $. $ $ $ $ $ Category 7 Metropolitan Mobility and Rehabilitation $ 4,720,000 $ 4,690,000 s 5,040,000 $ 5,160,000 $ 5,300,000 $ 4,240,000 $ 4,300,000 $ 4,360,000 $ 4,420,000 $ 4,470,000 Category 8 Safety Improvements $ 3,117,037 $ 1,842,430 $ $. $ $ s. $ $. $., Category 9Transportation Enhancement $ 410,000 $ 400,000 $ 430,000 $ 440,000 $ 440,000 $ $ 370,000 $ 380,000 $ 380,000 $ 390,000 Category 10Coordinated Border Infrastructure $ 43,500,000 $ 3,310,000 $ 6,900,000 $ 4,500,000 $ $ $ $ $. $. Category 10 Federal Earmark $ $ 11,690,000 $ $ 260,000 $ $ $ $ $ s. Category 10 Federal Earmark Match $ $ 2,120,000 $ $ $ $ $ $. $ $. Categgry 11 District Discretionary s 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 s 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 Category 11 Proposition 1 (Energy Sector) $ 9,260,000 $ 4,850,000 $ 4,850,000 s 4,850,000 $ 4,850,000 $ 4,850,000 $ 4,850,000 s 4,850,000 s 4,850,000 $ 4,850,000 Category 11 Rider llb $ 10,000,000 $ 10,000,000 $ $ $ $. $ $ $ $. Category 12Strategy Priority $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $. Total $ 157,811,037 $ 98,681,430 $ 79,019,000 $ 68,649,000 $ 64,029,000 $ 62,899,000 $ 62,959,000 $ 63,029,000 $ 63,089,000 $ 63,149,000 Numbers highlighted in Yellow are Forecasted Numbers based on 2016 UTP 08/13/15, 11/06/15, and 02/ 10/ 16 March 21,2016 7

5 FY Programming Information by Category ~ Fundine categories FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY 2030 FY2031 FY2032 FY2033 FY2034 FY2035 category 1 Rehab and Maint s 40,970,000 s 40,970,000 s 40,970,000 s 40,970,000 s 40,970,000 s 40,970,000 s 40,970,000 s 40,970,000 s 40,970,000 s 40,970,000 Category 1 Energy Sector Initiative s s s s s s s s s s Category 1 Prop 1 s 4,670,000 s 4,670,000 s 4,670,000 s 4,670,000 s 4,670,000 s 4,670,000 s 4,670,000 s 4,670,000 s 4,670,000 s 4,670,000 Category 2 Met ro and Urban Corridor s s s s s s s s s s Category 2 MPO Proposition 1 s 2,347,000 s 2,347,000 s 2,347,000 s 2,347,000 s 2,347,000 s 2,347,000 s 2,347,000 s 2,347,000 s 2,347,000 s 2,347,000 Category 3 Non Traditional Funded s s s s s s s s s s Category 4 Proposition 1 s 2,952,000 s 2,952,000 s 2,952,000 s 2,952,000 s 2,952,000 s 2,952,000 s 2,952,000 s 2,952,000 s 2,952,000 s 2,952,000 Cat~ory 4 Connectivity s s s s s s s s s s "' category6 Bridge Replacement/Rehab s s s s s s s s s s Category 7 Metropolitan Mobility and Rehabilitation s 4,720,000 s 4,470,000 s 4,470,000 s 4,470,000 s 4,470,000 s 4,470,000 s 4,470,000 s 4,470,000 s 4,470,000 s 4,470,000 Category 8Safety Improvements s s s s s s s s s s Category 9 Transportation Enhancement s 410,000 s 390,000 s 390,000 s 390,000 s 390,000 s 390,000 s 390,000 s 390,000 s 390,000 s 390,000 Category 10 Coordinated Border Infrastructure s s s s s s s s s s category 10 Federal Earmark s s s s s s s s s s category 10 Federal Earrnark Match s s s s s s s s s s Category 11 District Discretionary s 2,500,000 s 2,500,000 s 2,500,000 s 2,500,000 s 2,500,000 s 2,500,000 s 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 k:ategory 11 Proposition 1 (Energy Sector) $ 4,850,000 s 4,850,000 $ 4,850,000 s 4,850,000 s 4,850,000 s 4,850,000 $ 4,850,000 s 4,850,000 $ 4,850,000 $ 4,850,000 Category 11 Rider 11b s s s s $ s $ s s $ Category 12 StrategyPrioritv $ s $ $ $ s $ $ s s Total$ 63,169,000 $ 63,149,000 $ 63,149,000 $ 63,149,000 $ 63,149,000 $ 63,149,000 $ 63,149,000 $ 63,149,000 $ 63,149,000 $ 63,149,000. Numbers highlighted in Yellow are Forecasted March 21, 2016 "_ 5 ~

6 FY 2016 Programming Information by Category FY 2015 Webb County Categories Carryover FY 2016 Outside LRD MPO Laredo MPO Total Webb County Category 1 Rehab and Maint $ $ 43,890,000 $ 4,266,731 $ 910,000 $ 5,176,731 Category 1 Energy Sector Initiative $ $ 19,580,000 $ 4,672,136 $ 4,672,136 Category 1 Prop 1 $ {5,580,000.00) $ 8,910,000 $ 6,139,276 $ 6,139,276 Category 2 Metro and Urban Corridor $ $ $ Category 2 MPO Proposition 1 $ 760, $ 4,482,000 $ 5,250,000 $ 5,250,000 Category 3 Non Traditional Funded $ $ $ Category 4 Connectivity $ $ $ Category 4 Proposition 1 $ $ 5,640,000 $ Category 6 Bridge Replacement/Rehab $ $ 1,802,000 $ 1,802,000 $ 1,802,000 Category 7 Metropolitan Mobility and Rehabilitation $ 5,010, $ 4,720,000 $ Category 8 Safety Improvements $ $ 3,117,037 $ 3,117,037 $ 3,117,037 Category 9 Transportation Enhancement $ 1,220, $ 410,000 $ Category 10 Coordinated Border Infrastructure $ 11,720, $ 43,500,000 $ 39,700,000 $ 39,700,000 Category 10 Federal Earmark $ $ $ Category 10 Federal Earmark Match $ Is $ Category 11 District Discretionary $ 100, $ 2,500,000 $ Category 11 Proposition 1 {Energy Sector) $ 20,290, $ 9,260,000 $ 20,291,258 $ 20,291,258 Category 11 Rider 11b $ $ 10,000,000 $ Category 12 Strategy Priority $ $ $ I Total$ 33,52o,ooo I s 157,811,037 $ 12,208,007 $ 73,940,431 $ 86,148,438 March 21, 2016, 6, ' " ~

7 FY 2017 Programming Information by Category Webb County Categories FY 2017 Outside LRD MPO Laredo MPO Total Webb County Category 1 Rehab and Maint $ 47,310,000 $ 2,220,796 $ 2,189,030 $ 4,409,826 Category 1 Energy Sector Initiative $ $ Category 1 Prop 1 $ 4,670,000.. $ Category 2 Metro and Urban Corridor $ $ Category 2 MPO Proposition 1 " $ 2,347,000 $ 2,347,000 $ 2,347,000 Category 3 Non Traditional Funded $ $ Category 4 Connectivity $ $ Category 4 Proposition 1 $ 2,952,000 $ Category 6 Bridge Replacement/Rehab $ $ Category 7 Metropolitan Mobility and Rehabilitation $ 4,690,000 $ Category 8 Safety Improvements $ 1,842,430 $ 15,322 $ 1,827,108 $ 1,842,430 Category 9 Transportation Enhancement $ 400,000 $ Category 10 Coordinated Border Infrastructure $ 3,310,000 $ 13,822,077 $ 13,822,077 Category 10 Federal Earmark $ 11,690,000 ' $ 11,690,000 $ 11,690,000 Category 10 Federal Earmark Match $ 2,120,000 $ 2,120,000 $ 2,120,000 Category 11 District Discretionary $ 2,500,000 " $ 471,200 $ 471,200 Category 11 Proposition 1 (Energy Sector) $ 4,850,000 $ Category 11 Rider 11b $ 10,000,000 $ Category 12 Strategy Priority $ $ Total$ 98,681,430 $ 2,236,118 $ 34,466,415 $ 36,702,533 March 21,2016 ~

8 FY 2017 Programming Information by Category Questions? March 21,2016 ~

9 1 Category Table UTP Programming Information by Category Programming Ranking Index or Allocation Formula Instructions Funding and Project Scope/Description Texas Transportation Each district shall receive an allocation Federal90% Commission allocation based on this funding target formula: State 10% program distributed to Or Prevent ive districts by PM and Preventiv~ Maint~n anqe Federal SO% rehabilitation formulas. 3 basic criteria are weighted by percent. A State 20% Maintenance Entire allocation may be total allocation percent is calculated by Or and used on preventive district with 98% directed toward roadway State 100% (chief financial officer [CFO] approval) Rehabilitation maintenance or maintenance and 2% directed toward bridge rehabilitation projects or maintenance. This category provides for the preventive maintenance and combination. 65% onsystem lane miles. pavement rehabilitation on the existing state highway system Projects selected and 33% pavement distress score factor. including installation and rehabilitation of traffic cont rol devices, the managed by the district rehabilitation and maintenance of operational traffic management 2% square footage of onsystem bridge based on a prioritized list. systems. and the preservation and rehabilitation of pavements. deck area. Energysector distribution Preventive maintenancework to preserve, rather than improve, the and projects selected for Rehabilitation structural integrity of the pavement and/ or structure. Examples of Energy Sector initiatives 32.5% 3year average lane miles of preventive maintenance activities include asphalt concrete managed by Maintenance pavement distress scores< 70. pavement (ACP) overlays (2inch thick maximum); seal coats; Division. 20% vehicle miles traveled per lane mile cleaning and sealing joints and cracks; patching concrete pavement; District updates project (on system). shoulder repair; scour countermeasures; cleaning and painting steel data in the DCIS and 32.5% equivalent single axle load miles members to include application of other coatings; restoring drainage verifies in SharePoint. (on and off system and interstate). systems; cleaning and sealing bridge joints; microsurfacing; bridge Proj ects in this category deck protection; milling or bituminous levelup: clean, lubricate, and 15% pavement distress score pace factor. must have MPO reset bearings; and clean rebar/strand and patch st ructural concurrence if located in concrete and seal cracks. Energy Sector Factors its area of jurisdiction. 40% 3year average pavement condition Rehabilitationfunds can be expended on any highway on the state score. highway system and are intended for the rehabilitation (including 25% oil and gas production taxes ($). approved preventive maintenance measures) of existing main lanes, 25% well completions (No.). structures, and frontage roads. Rehabilitation of an existing twolane Volume oil and gas waste injected (Vol highway to a Super 2 highway may be funded within this category. BBLS). The installation, replacement, and/ or rehabilitation of signs and See note at end of section. their appurtenances, pavement markings, thermoplastic striping, traffic signals, and illumination systems. including minor roadway modifications to improve operations. are also allowed under this category. Funds can be used to install new traffic signals as well as modernize existing signals. March 21, 2016 :., 9 ;...._

10 2 Texas Transportation Each MPO shall receive an allocation based Federal80% Commission distributes on this funding target formula: Local20% funds to MPOs by the Or Metropolitan Category 2 metro and 2M: Federal80% urban formulas. TMA = 87% of Category 2 Funding Allocation State 20% and Urban This UTP does not Or Corridor distribute additional funds TMA Distribution Formula: State 100% (CFO approval) Projects in this category. Total 30% total vehicle miles traveled (on and project cost allocation. off system). Mobility and added capacity projects along a corridor that improve which includes preliminary 17% population. transportation facilities in order to decrease travel time and level or and construction 10% lane miles (on system). duration of traffic congestion and safety, maintenance, or engineering (TxDOT and 14% vehicle miles traveled (trucks only) rehabilitation projects that increase the safe and efficient consultant), right of way, (on system). movement of people and freight in metropolitan and urbanized and construction costs and 7% percentage of census population areas. must have the below the federal poverty level. concurrence and support 15% based on congestion. of the MPO having 7% fatal and incapacitating crashes. jurisdiction in the particular area. Projects 2U: may be reprioritized during MPO operating in areas that are nontma = the development of the 13% of Category 2 Funding Allocation UTP. Projects selected and MPO Distribution Formula: ranked by MPOs in 20% total vehicle miles traveled (on and consultation with TxDOT. off system). District updates data in 25% population. DCIS and verifies in Share Point. 8% lane miles (on system). 15% vehicle miles traveled (trucks only) (on system ). 4% percentage of census population below the federal poverty level. 8% centerline miles (on system). 10% congestion. 10% fatal and incapacitating crashes. March 21, 2016 ~

11 Project selection and/or Determined by legislation, Texas 3 State 100% (CFO approval) allocation based on Transportation Commission approved Minute Or legislation, Texas Order, and local government commitments. Local100% Transportation Or Non Commission approved Varies by agreement and rules traditionally Minute Orders and/or Funded anticipated loca l Transportationrelated projects that qualify for funding from sources Transportation commitments. not traditionally part of the SHF including state bond financing under Projects Projects in this category programs such as Proposition 12 (General Obligation Bonds). must have the Proposition 14, TMF. passthrough financing, regional revenue and concurrence and support concession funds, and local participation funding. ofthe MPO having j urisdiction in the particular area. The UTP does not authorize any new projects in the PassThrough Finance Program. District updates data in DCIS and verifies in Share Point. Update the P2D local entity field when local contribution or participation is applied to the P02 screen in DCIS. District ranks projects. March 21, ::

12 ~ Programming Information by Category 4 Projectspecific selection Selections based on engineering analysis of Federal80% by Texas Transportation projects on three corridor types: State 20% Commission. Or Statewide Total project cost Mobility corridorsbased on congestion. State 100% (CFO approval) allocation, which includes Connectivity preliminary and Connectivity corridors2lane roadways Mobility and added capacity proj ects on major state highway system Corridor construction engineering requiring upgrade to 4Jane divided. corridors, which provide statewide connectivity between urban areas Projects (TxDOT and consultant), and corridors. Composed of a highway connectivity network that right of way, and Strategic corridorsstrategic corridors on the includes: construction costs. state highway network that provide statewide The Texas Trunk System. Projects in t his category connectivity. An example would be the Ports National Highway System (N HS). must have the topla ins corridor. Connections from the Texas Trunk System or the NHS t o maj or concurrence and support of the MPO having ports on international borders or Texas water ports. jurisdiction in the particular area. District updates data in DCIS and verifies in SharePoint. District ranks projects. 5 Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Commission allocation Distributed by population weighted by air Federal SO% program. quality severity to nonattainment areas. Local20% Proj ects selected and Nonattainment areas designated by EPA. Or ranked by MPOs in Federal80% consultation with TxDOT State 20% and the Texas Commission Or on Environmental Quality. Projects must have final Federal90% approval by EPA and FHWA State 10% (Interstate) before letting. Total project cost Addresses attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standard in allocation, which includes nonattainment areas (currently DallasFort Worth. Houston. and El preliminary and Paso). Each project is evaluated to quantify its air quality construction engineering improvement benefits. Funds cannot be used to add capacity for (TxDOT and consultant). singleoccupancy vehicles. right of way, and construction costs. District updates data in DCJS and verifies in Share Point. March 21, '... ' '~

13 6 Statewide allocation HighWS!l! Briggg PrQgram: Highwa)! Brigge Program program set by Texas Bridges are selected statewide based on Federal90% Transportation eligibility and prioritized based on sufficiency State 10% Commission. ratings. Eligible bridges have a deficiency Or Structures Projects selected and status of Structurally Deficient or Federal SO% Replacement managed by BRG based on Functionally Obsolete and have sufficiency State 20% and prioritized listing. BRG ratings below a score of 80. Or Rehabilitation authorizes the letting for Federal80% Category 6 and monitors Railroad Grade Segaration: State 10% the district's ability to Projects are selected based on costbenefit Highway Local10% reach letting targets. index rating that encompasses vehicle and Or Bridge Projects in this category train traffic, accident rates, casualty costs, State 100% (CFO approval) Program must have MPO and personnel and equipment delay costs concurrence if located in for selecting atgrade railroad crossing Replaces or rehabilitates eligible bridges on and off the state Federal its area of jurisdiction. elimination projects or on prioritization highway system that are considered functionally obsolete or Railroad Grade RGS projects are selected ranking that uses vertical clearance and structurally deficient. Bridges with a sufficiency rating below 50 are Separation and managed by BRG roadway characteristics for selecting eligible for replacement. Bridges with a sufficiency rating of 80 or Program (RGS) based on a costbenefit replacement or rehabilitation of railroad less are eligible for rehabilitation. A minimum of 15% of the funding index for atgrade rai lroad underpass projects. must go toward replacement and rehabilitation of offsystem crossing elimination bridges. Bridge projects and a BMIP: Maintenance prioritization ranking for Projects are selected statewide based on Railroad Grade Separation: railroad underpass identified bridge maintenance/improvement Federal80% and replacement or needs to aid in ensuring the management State 20% Improvement rehabilitation projects. and safety of the state's bridge assets. For Program District coordinates UTP projects that are selected, all bridge Eliminates atgrade highwayrailroad crossings through the development project list elements will meet a predetermined construction of highway overpasses or railroad underpasses, and (BMIP) with BRG. condition threshold after rehabilitation. rehabilitates or replaces deficient railroad underpasses on the state District updates data in highway system. DCIS and verifies in Share Point. BRG ranks projects. March 21, ,

14 7 Texas Transportation Federal program distributed to MPOs with an Federal SO% Commission allocation urbanized area population of 200,000 or Local20% program. greater {TMAs). Or Allocation based on Federal SO% Metropolitan projected federal funding State 20% Mobility and levels. Rehabilitation Total project cost State transportation needs within the metropolitan area boundaries allocation, which includes of the MPO are having urbanized area populations of or preliminary and greater. Projects selected by the MPOs. construction engineering (TxDOT and consultant), This program authority can be used on any roadway with a right of way, and functional classification greater t han a local road or rural minor construction costs. collector. Projects selected and ranked by MPOs in consultation with TxDOT. District updates data in DCIS and verifies in SharePoint. March 21, 2016 "'_14;,

15 8 Texas Transportat ion High wa~ ~aff1~ lmqrqvement Program: Highwa~ SS!f!il~ lmqrqvement Program: Commission allocation Safety improvement index. Federal90% program. State 10% Projects selected and Roadway safety features for preventable Safety managed by the Traffic severe crash types. Safetyrelated projects on and off the state highway system. Projects Operations Division (TRF) are evaluated using 3 years of crash data and ranked by safety Highway based on a prioritized Jist. Safety Bond Program: improvement index. Safety TRF authorizes the Jetting Safety improvement index. roadway safety Improvement for Category 8 and characteristics, and anticipated time High Risk Rural Roads projects previously authorized remain in monitors the district's required to complete the candidate project. Program Category 8. Future High Risk Rural Roads projects will be managed ability to reach letting under the HSIP if required by special rule. targets. SY!f1mic Widf1ning Program Safety Bond District coordinates UTP Roadway safety features for preventable Safe Routes to School projects previously authorized remain in Program development project list severe crash types. Total Risk Factor Weight. Category 8. Future Safe Routes to School projects will be managed with TRF. under the Transportation Alternative Program guidelines in Category Systemic District updates data in 9. Widening DCIS and verifies in Program SharePoint. Safety Bond Program: TRF manages statewide State 100% allocation. District scores projects in Allocations for the safety bond program are approved by the Texas consultation with TRF. Transportation Commission, with the program managed as an allocation program on a statewide basis. Projects evaluated, ranked, prioritized, and selected by TRF. SY temic Widening Program State 100% Roadway widening projects on the state highway system. Projects are evaluated using Total Risk Factor Weights. Projects evaluated, ranked, prioritized, and selected by TRF. March 21, s: ~

16 8 Texas Transportation Railroad crossing index. Federal90% Commission allocation State 10% program. Safety Projects selected and Funding set aside from HSIP for safety improvements in order to managed by TRF based on reduce the number of fatalities, injuries, and crashes at public grade a prioritized list. TRF crossings. Federal authorizes the letting for Category 8 and monitors Installation of automatic railroad warning devices at railroad Railwaythe district's ability to crossings on and off state highway system, selected from statewide Highway reach letting targets. inventory list, which is prioritized by index using a crash prediction Safety Dist rict coordinates UTP formula (number of trains per day, train and highway speed, average Progra m development project list daily traffic, number of tracks and traffic lanes, type of existing with TRF. warning device, traininvolved crashes within prior 5 years. etc.). District updates data in Provide incentive payments to local governments for closing DCIS and verifies in crossings. Improve signal preemption and coordination of train Share Point. control signals. Improve passive warning devices to comply with TRF ranks projects in federal guidelines. consultation with district. March 21, :

17 9 Projectspecific selection TxDOT staff and FHWA evaluate for eligibility Federal80% by Texas Transportation and make recommendations to Texas Local20% Commission. Transportation Commission. TMAs select and Or Transportation Proj ects in this category rank projects within their areas in Federal80% must have the consultation with TxDOT. State 20% Enhancements concurrence and support of the MPO having Projects defined as transportation enhancements, including on and j urisdiction in the offroad pedestrian and bicycle facilities, bicycle education and particular area. safety activities, acquisition of scenic easements, tourist and Not reauthorized under welcome centers, landscaping, historic preservation, rehabilitation MAP21. and operation of historic transportation buildings, preservation of Funds distributed to satisfy abandoned railways, control and removal of outdoor advertising, commitments made from archeological planning and research. environmental mitigation, and previous program calls. establishment of transportation museums. District updates data in DCIS and verifies in SharePoint. Design division manages statewide allocation. DES authorizes the letting for Category 9 TE projects and monitors the district's ability to reach letting targets. March 21, ,~

18 9 Texas Transportation Selection criteria include travel corridors, Federal80% Commission allocation appropriate size and spacing of rest areas, State 20% program. customerdesired features, and operational Projects selected and functions. Projects to renovate, build. and relocate safety rest areas and visitor Transportation managed by the centers along the state highway system. Small amount of program Enhancements Maintenance Division funds used for safety rest area repairs. Other federalaid or state (Cont.) (MNT) based on a funds may be used for nonqualifying repair activities. prioritized list. M NT Safety Rest authorizes t he letting for Category 9 SRA projects Area Program and monitors the district's ability to reach letting targets. Design Division coordinates project list with MNT. Projects in this category must have the concurrence and support of t he MPO having jurisdiction in the particular area. MNT coordinates updates in DCIS and verifies in SharePoint. Design Division manages statewide allocation and ranks projects. ' March 21, 2016 '~ 18 ~

19 9 Texas Transportation Federal program with 50% available for Federal SO% Commission allocation statewide flexible use and 50% distributed State 20% program. by population. MPOs with an urbanized area Or Federal program created population of 200,000 or greater (TMAs) Federal SO% Transportation by MAP21. receive direct TAP allocat ions. Local20% Alternatives Includes 50% distribut ion Program of funds based on For urbanized areas with populations over For a TxDOTadministered Call for Projects, the eligible TAP project population. 200,000, the MPO through a competitive activities defined in the Texas Administrative Code (TAC), Title 43. TMA's MPO shall receive process selects TAP projects in consultation Subchapter F Rule : direct TAP allocations. with TxDOT. During a program call administered by the department. TAP funds TMA"s MPO TAP projects may be awarded for any of the following activities: shall be ranked and Funds allocated to small urban areas and Construction of on and offroad trail facilities for pedestrian and selected by the TMA's MPO nonurban areas (i.e., areas with populations bicycle facilities, and other nonmotorized forms of in consultation wit h TxDOT. below 200,000) will be administered by transportation, including sidewalks, bicycle infrastructure, TxDOT district staff shall TxDOT through a competitive process. pedestrian and bicycle signals. trafficcalming techniques. update DC IS for TAP lighting and other safetyrelated infrastructure, and projects selected within TAP project eligibility will be determined by transportation projects to achieve compliance wit h the their dist rict. TxDOT and FHWA. Americans with Disabilities Act of In areas with populations Construction of infrastructurerelated projects and systems that less than 200,000. TAP TxDOT staff makes recommendations to provide safe routes for nondrivers, including children, older program calls to be Texas Transportation Commission for TAP adults, and individuals with disabilities to access daily needs. managed by PTN. allocation to areas with less than Conversion and use of abandoned railroad corridors for trails for PTN shall rank TAP population. pedestrian. bicyclists, or other nonmotorized transportation projects from areas with users. populations less than The Texas Transportation Commission. by Construction of infrastructurerelated projects to improve the written order, will select projects for funding ability of students to walk and bicycle to school, including PTN coordinates updates under a TxDOTadm inistered TAP call for sidewalk improvements. traffic calming and speed reduction in DCIS and verifies TAP projects. improvements. pedestrian and bicycle crossing improvements, project information in onstreet bicycle facilities. offstreet bicycle and pedestrian SharePoint. Statewide TAP Flex projects shall be selected facilities, secure bicycle parking facilities. and traffic diversion by the Texas Transportation Commission. improvements in the vicinity of schools. A project that will require the acquisition of real property through exercise of eminent domain or condemnation is not eligible for participation in the TAP. Whether proposed as an independent project or as an element of a larger transportation project. the project must be limited to a logical unit of work and be constructible as an independent project. MPO TAP funding must be in accordance with federal TAP guidance and TAC. Title 43, Subchapter F, Rule March 21, s

20 I Programming Information by Category 10 Texas Transportation TPWD: State 100% Commission allocation Locations selected and prioritized by TPWD. program. TPWD: Supplemental District updates data in Construction and rehabilitation of roadways within or adjacent to DCIS and verifies in state parks, fish hatcheries, etc. Subject to Memorandum of Transportation Share Point. Agreement between TxDOT and TPWD. District ranks projects. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 10 Statewide allocation Green Ribbon: State 100% (CFO approval) programs. Allocations based on onehalf percent of the Or Projects selected and estimated letting capacity for the TxDOT Federal80% managed by the Design districts that contain air quality non State 20% Supplemental Division. attainment or near nonattainment counties Transportation Projects in this category Green Ribbon : Projects must have the Curb Ramp: Address new landscape development and establishment projects concurrence and support Projects are selected based on conditions of within districts that have air quality nonattainment or near Green Ribbon of the MPO having curb ramps or location of intersections nonattainment counties (projects to plant trees and shrubs to help Landscape jurisdiction in the without ramps. mitigate the effects of air pollution). particular area. Improvement District updates data in Landscape lncen!ive Awards: Curb Ramp: Program DCIS and verifies in Funding is distributed to 10 locations based This program addresses construction or replacement of curb ramps Share Point. on results of Keep Texas Beautiful Awards at onsystem intersections to make the intersections more Curb Ramp Design Division manages Program. accessible to pedestrians with disabilities. Program statewide allocations and ranks projects. Landscape Incentive Awards: Miscellaneous Projects are selected by Program allows the department to negotiate and execute joint Landscape the Design Division with landscape development projects in nine locations based on population categories in association with the Keep Texas Beautiful Incentive concurrence from the MPO if within the MPO Governors Community Achievement Awards Program. The awards Awards jurisdiction. recognize participating cities or communities efforts in litter control, Program quality of life issues, and beautification programs and projects. March 21, o ;~

21 10 ~QQ rdins:!ted Bord~r CQordinated Bord~r lnfrs;!~ryr;;tyr~: Federal 100% Infrastructure: Allocation formula: Or Texas Transportation 20% incoming commercial trucks. Federal SO% Commission allocation 30% incoming personal motor vehicles Local20% Supplemental program by formula. and buses. Or Transportation Not reauthorized under 25% weight of incoming cargo by Federal SO% Projects MAP21. commercial trucks. State 20% Funding level is set based 25% number of land border ports of entry. Coordinated on projects identified by Coordinated Border Infrastructure: Border the districts and approved Sur::u21ement21 TransQortation Project Projects selected in program to improve the safe movement of by FHWA. Infrastructure (Federal): motor vehicles at or across the land border between the United District updates data in Not applicable. States and Mexico. Program DCIS and verifies in Share Point. Federal Lands Access Program: SuQQiemental TransQQrtation Project (Federal}: Supplemental District ranks projects. Projects applications are scored and ranked Federal discretionary and congressional highpriority projects. Transportation Projects in this category by the Programming Decision Committee Projects must have the (PDC). Members of the PDC include a Federal Lands Acce S Program: (Federal) concurrence and support representative from FHWA, a representative Federal SO% of the MPO having from TxDOT, and a member from a political State 20% jurisdiction in the subdivision of the state. particular area. Projects selected on Federal Lands Access Program transportation Funds are allocated by facilities that are located on or adjacent to or provide access to FHWA. federal lands. New program under MAP21. Projects are submitted Federal Lands directly to FHWA. Access Projects are selected by Program the Programming Decisions Committee. TxDOT projects selected under the Federal Lands Access Program are managed by TPP. TPP coordinates with districts for updates in DCIS and verifies in Share Point. March 21, ,

22 10 Texas Transportation Railroad ~rgg~ ~(Q~~ ing and R~Qignking State 100% Commission allocation Pmgram: program. Condition of crossing's riding surface and Railroad Grgde ~rqs~ing gng R~QISJnking PrQgram: Supplemental Projects selected and benefit to cost per vehicle using crossing. Replacement of rough railroad crossing surfaces on the state managed by TRF based on highway system (approximately 50 installations per year statewide). Transportation a prioritized Jist. Railroad Signal Maintenance Program: Proj ect selection based on conditions of the riding surface (highway, Projects Projects in this category Number of crossings and type of automatic railroad, and drainage) and benefit to cost per vehicle using the must have the devices present at each. crossing. Railroad concurrence and support Rehabilitation of the MPO having Railroad Signal Maintenance Program: jurisdiction in the Financial contributions to each railroad company based on number and particular area. of state highway system crossings and type of automatic devices Improvement District updates data in present at each crossing. Projects DCIS and verifies in SharePoint. Railroad Grade District ranks projects in Crossing consultation with TRF. Replan king District updates project Program completion data in TRF crossing inventory Railroad database. Signal Maintenance Program 11 Texas Transportation Minimum $2.5 million allocation to each Federal80% Commission allocation district per legislative mandate. If additional State 20% program. funds are distributed, the below formula is Or Projects selected and used: Federal80% District managed by the district. Local20% Discretionary Projects in this category Allocation formula: Or must have the 70% onsystem vehicle miles traveled. State 100% (CFO approval) concurrence and support 20% onsystem Jane miles. of the MPO having 10% annual truck vehicle miles traveled. Projects selected at the district's discretion. jurisdiction in the Most projects should be on the state highway system. However, particular area. The commission may supplement the funds some projects may be selected for construction off the state District updates data in allocated to individual districts on a caseby highway system on roadways with a f unctional classification greater DCIS and verifies in case basis to cover project cost overruns. than a local road or rural minor collector. Funds from this program SharePoint. should not be used for right of way acquisition. District ranks projects. See note at end of section. March 21, 2016, 2?::

23 12 Projectspecific selection Strategic Prioritv: Federal80% by Texas Transportation Selected by Texas Transportation State 20% Commission for strategic Commission. Or priority. Federal SO% Strategic Allocation of funds for ~AT 12 CMAQ and STPMM Reconciliation: Local20% Priority CAT 12 CMAQ and STPM M Allocations provided to MPOs. Projects Or reconciliation. selected and ranked by the MPO in State 100% (CFO approval) CMAQ and District updates data in consultation with TxDOT. All changes and STPMM DCIS and verifies in selections to these projects are approved by Texas Transportation Commission selects projects to: Reconciliation Share Point. Texas Transportation Commission. Promote economic opportunity. District ranks projects in Increase efficiency on military deployment routes or to retain consultation with MPOs for military assets in response to the Federal Military Base allocation. Realignment and Closure Report. Proj ects in this category Maintain the ability to respond to both manmade and natural must have the emergencies. concurrence and support of the MPO having jurisdiction in the particular area. DA Planning funds distributed Distribution based on existing category Focus on advanced planning activities. by formula and/ or by formulas and programs in order to meet project selection. target planning levels. May be programmed to Develop account for inflation costs. Authority meet funding shortfall/ gap, or initiate advanced planning project activity. Project specific and selected by the districts, Administration, and the Texas Transportation Commission. Districts coordinate with the MPO on planning activities to ensure alignment with the MTP. Note: The Texas Transportation Commission may supplement the funds allocated to individual districts in response to special initiatives, safety issues, or unforeseen environmental factors. Supplemental funding is not required to be allocated proportionately among the districts and is not required to be allocated according to the formulas specified above. In determining whether to allocate supplemental funds to a particular district. the commission may consider safety issues, traffic volumes, pavement widths, pavement conditions, oil and gas production, well completion, or any other relevant factors. March 21, 2016 _ 23_11

24