OTO to U.S. DOT and MoDOT Comments on FY 2015-2018 TIP Comments with remaining questions are highlighted in grey with a draft response and/or question in green. MoDOT is working to help provide answers on these questions. FTA Comments 1. Page A-i, Paragraph 2 Recommend adding the TIP is a programmed effort used to carry out the goals and vision of the region's Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Added wording to the first line of the second paragraph, The TIP is a financially constrained fouryear program outlining the most immediate implementation priorities for area transportation projects, carrying out the goals and vision of Journey 2035, the OTO s long range transportation plan. 2. Page A-ii Recommend using "urbanized area" if the city limits differ from the developed portion of the region. Added a second map showing the urbanized area. 3. Page A-v, Last Paragraph Generally an equity analysis is conducted also. Added wording to make mention of equity analysis, A public hearing is required, and an equity analysis may also be performed, prior to implementing either an increase in transit fares or a significant reduction in service. 4. Page A-vii, 2 nd Complete Paragraph Is the region's MTP considered? If so, it should be noted. Added wording to indicate consideration of MPO priorities and the long range transportation plan, These factors may include the MPO s and RPC s prioritized lists, public comment and priority time necessary to produce plans and estimated costs, as well as the recommendations of the long range transportation plan, safety factors, traffic information, condition ratings, construction scheduling and sequencing, duration of the construction, coordination with other construction projects (both MoDOT s and others), economic development, and the availability of outside funding sources. 5. Page H-ii Please communicate why OTO predicts declining revenues available for the area ( e.g. depleted Highway Trust Fund). OTO Reponse to TIP Comments Page 1 of 12 16 July 2014
Added wording indicating reasons behind declining revenues, The table below indicates the total amount of federal and state funding that MoDOT has projected as available for the OTO area in the 2015-2019 STIP. Federal funding is shown as declining over the next four years due to declining revenues from the Highway Trust Fund, as well as MoDOT s declining ability to match federal funds, due to a decrease in projected state revenue. This table does not include OTO sub-allocated federal funding, such as STP-Urban, BRM, or Enhancement. Transit funding includes all formula funding distributed to the Springfield, MO area for FTA Sections 5307, 5310, and 5339 funding. FHWA Comments 1. Page A-I, Last Paragraph The status of the projects is greater than just being eligible for implementation. The TIP presents a list of projects that the MPO has selected to be delivered over the TIP horizon period. Please consider revising the last sentence as follows: The projects in the TIP represent the agreed list of projects eligible for implementation that are programmed to be delivered in each year of the four year TIP horizon period. Done 2. Page A-vii, Transportation Plan Compliance Paragraph 1 Please consider referring to the LRTP as the Long Range Transportation Plan, Journey 2035 approved by the OTO Board of Directors on December 15, 2011. Added Journey 2035 after Long Range Transportation Plan. 3. Page A-vii, Transportation Plan Compliance Paragraph 1 Please consider replacing the word improvements with the word projects. Done 4. Pages B-i through B-xii The status of several projects (EN1302, EN1305, EN1306, EN1307) programmed in FY2014 are not documented. The cited four projects have been carried over to FY2015. Please reconcile to the extent needed. As these projects are reprogrammed, they are not included in the status pages. The status pages only include those projects that are not reprogrammed or marked as complete from the prior TIP. Added wording to the top of page B-i stating such, The tables below show the status of projects OTO Reponse to TIP Comments Page 2 of 12 16 July 2014
that were either not reprogrammed or marked as complete in the prior Transportation Improvement Program. 5. Pages B-i through B-xii The TIP # GR 1312 Bridge Replacement, Bridge #1020164 On Farm Road 102 project is programmed in FY2014 of the current TIP. It is being carried over into FY2015 of the updated TIP. Why is this project not shown in the status tables for Greene County projects? As stated above, reprogrammed projects are not included in the status pages. 6. Miscellaneous A very informative Project Description Key was developed by OTO and incorporated into the FY2014-2018 TIP. Please consider inserting this one page information index into the beginning of Sections D-F. OTO will include this for the final draft TIP. 7. Section D: Roadways Program Please consider grouping all MoDOT & LPA scoping projects together. Projects are ordered by their TIP number, which is assigned according to the location (if specific) and timing of the project. 8. Section D: Roadways Program The TIP#CC1110 project (Pg. E4) is MoDOT project #8P2356 that is shown as having local funding the FY2015-2019 STIP. Should there be local funding shown in the TIP project table? Local funding has been added and the other programmed amounts adjusted accordingly. 9. Section D: Roadways Program TIP # GR1010 project (Pg. E5) is MoDOT project #8P0683D that is showing a partial AC programmed construction project in FY2015 as well as an AC conversion in FY2015. Is it correct to show AC year of conversion as FY2015? Same question for the following MoDOT AC projects programmed for award in STIP FY2015: TIP #MO1408 / 8P3010 TIP #MO1409 / 8P3011 TIP #SP1315 / 8P2264C TIP #SP1316 / 8P3005 TIP #SP1318 / 8P3002 TIP #SP1323 / 8P3019 TIP #SP1408 / 8S0690B TIP #SP1411 / 8S3034 TIP #SP1501 / 8P3035B OTO Reponse to TIP Comments Page 3 of 12 16 July 2014
It looks like these are projects with MoDOT-AC and an anticipated year of conversion of FY 2015, so yes, it is correct to show FY 2015 as the year of conversion. 10. Section D: Roadways Program I am unable to locate in the FY2015-2019 STIP. Please reconcile. TIP # MO1405 (MoDOT project # 8P3027) TIP # MO1501 (MoDOT project # 8P2279) TIP # MO1601 (MoDOT project # 8P2277) TIP # MO1603 (MoDOT project # 8Q3000) TIP # MO1701 (MoDOT project # 8Q3001) TIP # MO1705 (MoDOT project # 8Q3009) TIP # MO1801 (MoDOT project # 8Q3009) TIP # SP1416 (MoDOT project # 8P30419) TIP # MO1405 (MoDOT project # 8P3027), Surveying for Excess ROW This is in there, changed programmed amount to match. TIP # MO1501 (MoDOT project # 8P2279), Annual On-Call Work Zone Enforcement I found this one TIP # MO1601 (MoDOT project # 8P2277), Annual On-Call Work Zone Enforcement This one is not labeled with the TIP number in the STIP (It should be 8P2377). TIP # MO1603 (MoDOT project # 8Q3000), ITS I found this one TIP # MO1701 (MoDOT project # 8Q3001), ITS This one is not labeled with the TIP number in the STIP. TIP # MO1705 (MoDOT project # 8Q3009), Annual Guardrail and Guard Cable All of the guardrail projects were listed as MO1150, but now have the right TIP Numbers. TIP # MO1801 (MoDOT project # 8Q3009), ITS This one is not in the STIP yet, but it was programmed fully in the TIP, as Springfield was programming their share. TIP # SP1416 (MoDOT project # 8P30419), Glenstone and Pythian This is in the Design and Scoping section of the STIP. 11. Section D: Roadways Program Why is the STIP# 8P2219 shown for TIP# NX0906 project that appears to be a Nixa sponsored project? I am unable to located the 8P2219 project in the STIP. Please reconcile. This is a cost share project between Nixa and the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission. When I look at the draft STIP online, 8P2219 is shown for this project. OTO Reponse to TIP Comments Page 4 of 12 16 July 2014
12. Section D: Roadways Program TIP #SP1323 / 8P3019 The Federal dollar amount in the table ($681,000) is different than the Federal dollar amount in the notes ($728,721). The Federal dollar amount shown in the STIP is $728,721. Please reconcile. The $728,721 includes the STP-Urban programmed for ROW ($47,000) in FY 2015 and the STP-Urban programmed for Construction ($681,000) in FY 2016. 13. Section D: Roadways Program TIP #SP1323 / 8S0690B This is shown in the tables as a state funded AC project. However, the notes indicate that there is both local and Federal funding involved with this project. Is it correct to show all state funding for this FY2015 programmed project? This project is a combination of local, STP-Urban, MoDOT, and MoDOT-AC funding. The funding shown with MoDOT-AC indicates the funding amount that is eligible for advance construction conversion to federal funding in the future. 14. Section D: Roadways Program TIP #SP1410 / 8P0605 The FY2015 cost and the total cost shown in the TIP & STIP are not the same. Please reconcile. FY 2015 in the TIP shows $140,000 MoDOT and $160,000 MoDOT AC for $300k total, while the STIP shows $200k. FY 2016 match between the TIP and STIP. This has been corrected to put $40,000 MoDOT in FY 2015, instead of $140,000. 15. Section D: Roadways Program The following MoDOT projects shown in the FY2015-2019 STIP do not appear to be shown in the OTO FY2015-2018 TIP. Please reconcile 8P2219, 8P2356, 8S2267, 7S3041, 8P2264D, 8S3025, 0I300M, 8P0683D, 8P3006, 8S3026, 8U0500, 8P3035C, 0P3011I, 8P3009. 8P2219 This is programmed as NX0906 8P2356 This is programmed as CC1110 8S2267 This is programmed as MO1206 7S3041 This is programmed as GR1402 8P2264D (SP1317) Programmed in STIP following start of STIP Fiscal Year, but before start of TIP Fiscal Year 8S3025 This is programmed as SP1412 in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Section 0I3001M This is programmed as MO1504 8P0683D This is programmed as GR1010 OTO Reponse to TIP Comments Page 5 of 12 16 July 2014
8P3006 (GR1304) Programmed in STIP following start of STIP Fiscal Year, but before start of TIP Fiscal Year 8S3026 Programmed as SP1414 in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Section 8U0500 (SP1108) Programmed in STIP following start of STIP Fiscal Year, but before start of TIP Fiscal Year 8P3035C This is programmed as EN1502 in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Section 0P3011I This is programmed as EN1601 in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Section 8P3009 This is programmed as MO1705 16. Section F: Advance Construction The MoDOT STIP does not show the programming of project specific AC conversion actions. Instead, MoDOT shows a lump sum amount of anticipated Federal revenue that they plan to use to convert AC projects during each program year of the STIP horizon period. The programming of specific MoDOT AC projects for conversion in the OTO TIP is inconsistent with the lump sum programming approach used by MoDOT in the STIP. Please consider discontinuing the practice of including this AC conversion section in the OTO TIP. OTO will remove the individual Advance Construction project listings. Instead a table similar to that shown in Section H, as well as the background information on Advance Construction will be moved to the text of the Roadways Section. This will be complete for the final draft. 17. Section H: Financial UPFRONT Great job of documenting the anticipated available Federal, state and local revenue over the TIP horizon period. Thank you. 18. Page H-i, Paragraph 6 MoDOT Revenue The statement that reads, since state fiscal year 2007, projects on a statewide basis have been awarded from 7-13% less than the programmed amount, is outdated and likely no longer accurate. Please confirm with MoDOT and revise as needed. This is explained further in the paragraph, Since State Fiscal Year 2007, projects on a statewide basis have been awarded from seven to 13 percent less than the programmed amount. Every year, awards continue to be less than the programmed amounts and projects are being completed for less than programmed amounts, which allows for more savings during the construction phase of projects. MoDOT s newest STIP, 2015-2019, however, does not include adjustments for anticipated award savings as past STIPs have. This savings pattern has not continued for projects awarded in OTO Reponse to TIP Comments Page 6 of 12 16 July 2014
2014. State Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019 have been purposefully under programmed in order to accommodate unforeseen changes. 19. Pages H-iii and H-iv Federal and State Revenue Sources The narrative about MoDOT revenue is identical to the narrative presented in the current TIP. The MoDOT revenue amounts estimated for the FY2015-2019 STIP are different than the revenue amounts estimated in the current STIP. Please make sure that the percentages shown for each specific MoDOT revenue source, as part of the total amount of MoDOT transportation revenue, mirrors the percentages shown in the MoDOT FY2015-2019 STIP Section Five. The Federal and State Revenue section was updated to reflect the information found in the FY 2015-2019 STIP. 20. Tables H.5 and H.6 Projected Revenues The OTO has chosen to not use an inflation factor when estimating available local revenue presented in tables H.5 & H.6. While at the same time it is noted that the estimated anticipated local revenue for FY2015 is 1% - 4% greater than the total local revenue estimated for FY2015 in the current FY2014-2018 TIP. The changes from the FY 2014-2017 TIP and the FY 2015-2018 TIP are because future years are based on current revenue receipts. The local jurisdictions have experienced an increase in the amount of revenues reflected, but with the still changing economic environment, staff thought it was important to still be cautious when projecting revenue. 21. Page H-vii Please update the second to last sentence, regarding the average number of days between bid award and conversion, to show 196 days. Recommend removing reference to the first quarter fiscal year 2013. Done 22. Page H-vii Please update the last sentence to show the reference to the FY2015-2019. Done OTO Reponse to TIP Comments Page 7 of 12 16 July 2014
23. Pages H-vii and H-viii Please take steps to obtain current MoDOT O&M cost information based on the MoDOT Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request. This has been requested and this information was the most recent OTO was provided. 24. Table H.8 Greene County maintains, by a very wide margin, the second largest amount of Federal-aid system road miles (114.999) of any LPA in the Springfield MPA. Consideration should be given to showing Greene County as a stand-alone jurisdiction in Table H.8. As stated in submission of Draft TIP to FHWA, this table was waiting for updated information. Christian County Mileage has been added and shown separately from Greene County. Table H.8 Number of Lane Miles on Federal- Aid System Cost per Mile FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 State System MoDOT 1003.847 $6,500 $6,525,006 $6,655,506 $6,788,616 $6,924,388 Non-State System Battlefield 7.955 $469 $3,731 $3,806 $3,882 $3,960 Nixa 10.049 $2530 $25,424 $25,932 $26,451 $26,980 Ozark 7.119 $8500 $60,512 $61,722 $62,956 $64,215 Republic 29.996 $1212 $36,355 $37,082 $37,824 $38,580 Springfield 376.844 $6172 $2,325,881 $2,372,399 $2,419,847 $2,468,244 Willard 8.578 $1626 $13,948 $14,227 $14,512 $14,802 Christian County 37.997 $1057 $40,163 $40,966 $41,785 $42,621 Greene County 101.037 $1057 $106,796 $108,932 $111,111 $113,333 TOTAL 579.575 $2,612,810 $2,665,066 $2,718,368 $2,772,735 25. Table H.8 Consideration should be given to including a note at the bottom of Table H.8 that states that Christian County does not own any Federal-aid system roadway. This is not an accurate statement. Please see response to Comment 24 above. OTO Reponse to TIP Comments Page 8 of 12 16 July 2014
26. Table H.8 (renamed to H.9) This continues to do a great job of delivering a windshield view of the demonstration of fiscal constraint for the LPAs that have programmed projects in the FY2015-2018 TIP. Thank you. 27. Table H.10 Please document the inflation factor reflected in the O&M costs over the TIP horizon period. The following information was added, Estimated costs have been tracking with inflation, though depreciation and administrative costs are expected to increase, partially due to the completion of the transfer facility. Inflation rates range from 2.50 percent to 3.50 percent over the timeline of the TIP. Similar inflation factors were applied to the revenue as well. 28. Table H.11 Please document the inflation factor reflected in the estimated revenue for transit O&M over the TIP horizon period. As above, the following information was added, Estimated costs have been tracking with inflation, though depreciation and administrative costs are expected to increase, partially due to the completion of the transfer facility. Inflation rates range from 2.50 percent to 3.50 percent over the timeline of the TIP. Similar inflation factors were applied to the revenue as well. 29. Table H.11 Please explain how it is possible that the projected available transit revenue is equal to the estimated transit expenses for each of the four years of the TIP horizon period. (NOTE: Is it accurate to recognize the annual CU utility revenue amount as a type of subsidy that offsets the difference between available revenue generated by the other four available funding sources and the estimated annual cost to operate the transit system?) The City Utility Revenue is a subsidy that offsets the difference between available revenue generated by the other four available funding sources and the estimated annual cost to operate the transit system. 30. Page H-9 The middle table on page H-9 shows a running TOTAL REMAINING amount of State and Federal Funding after all programming is considered for each program year. The following calculation can be confusing to a reader: OTO Reponse to TIP Comments Page 9 of 12 16 July 2014
FY 2015 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING $39,498,707 Programmed State & Federal Funding ($51,664,813) TOTAL REMAINING $37,013, 983 This confusion is possible because the calculation does show the inclusion of the Prior Year TOTAL REMAINING balance amount of $49,180,089 in the TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING amount. Consideration should be given to showing the available Prior Year funding amounts at the top of each FY column. If shown in this manner, the Programmed State & Federal Funding amount would be subtracted from the combined total of prior year available but unobligated/programmed funding & FY2015 estimated revenue. FY 2015 Prior Year Funding $49,180,089 Available FY2015 Funding (+) $39,498,707 TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDING $88,678,796 Programmed State & Federal Funding (-) ($51,664,813) TOTAL REMAINING $37,013, 983 We have added a Prior Year Funding row to the table. MoDOT Comments The following projects have different total cost amounts in the Draft TIP compared to the Draft STIP. Frank Miller has provided further information in blue text regarding the cost differences. 1. Section D: Roadways Program 7S3041 (TIP-$3,035,000; STIP-$2,943,000) Because of FY overlap, we double-programmed some preliminary engineering. FY 2015 PE in the TIP should be reduced by $92,000 because it was programmed in FY 2014 TIP but FY 2015 STIP. This is GR1402, Route 125 Railroad Crossing. The funding amounts have been adjusted in the TIP. 2. Section D: Roadways Program 8P3011 (TIP-$1,657,200; STIP-$1,658,000) MoDOT (State) construction cost should be $309,800 in the TIP. This is MO1409, West Bypass Pavement Improvements. The amount was changed to reflect the above comment. OTO Reponse to TIP Comments Page 10 of 12 16 July 2014
3. Section D: Roadways Program 8P2219 (TIP-$3,519,751; STIP-$3,522,000) Previously-programmed amount in the TIP missed either $2,000 of PE from 2013 or 2014. It should be $24,000 prior programmed (and the remaining difference is due to rounding). This is NX0906, Route 160 and 14 Intersection. Added $2,000 to the prior funding, bringing the total to $3,521,751. 4. Section D: Roadways Program 8P0683E (TIP-$212,000; STIP-$302,000) Previously-programmed amount in the TIP is missing $90,000 from prior to 2013. It should be $294,000 previously-programmed. This is RG0901, Scoping for Interchange at Route 60 and Route 125. Additional funding was added to the previously programmed amount. 5. Section D: Roadways Program 8P0605G (TIP-$9,467,000; STIP-$9,367,000) We made an error on the PE. It should be MoDOT ENG of $40,000 in FY 2015 and MoDOT-AC ENG of $160,000 in FY 2015. This is SP1410, Route 65 Pavement Improvements. Changed 2015 MoDOT Engineering to be $40,000 instead of $140,000. 6. Section D: Roadways Program 8P0850B (TIP-$2,924,401; STIP-$2,926,000) Error on MoDOT-AC ENG in FY 2016 should be $1,600, not $1. This is SP1106, Eastgate Avenue Relocation. Changed 2016 MoDOT-AC Engineering to be $1,600 instead of $1. 7. Section D: Roadways Program 8P2196 (TIP-$14,978,871; STIP-$15,067,000) Need multiple corrections on this one will provide later. Funding amounts were changed in TIP to reconcile differences. OTO Reponse to TIP Comments Page 11 of 12 16 July 2014
8. Section D: Roadways Program 8S0690B (TIP-$2,424,000; STIP-$2,469,000) There was an error in FY 2014 - $45,000 of ROW Incidentals were not programmed in the TIP. Total MoDOT Engineering for 2014 should have been $225,000. This is SP1408, Campbell and Plainview Phase 3. We will be making an Administrative Modification to FY 2014-2017 TIP to correct for the increased engineering. 9. Section D: Roadways Program 8Q3001 This appears to be a duplicate project with different dollar amounts (TIP-$1,038,000; STIP- $673,000) The TIP includes the City of Springfield s portion which is not included in the STIP. The STIP only shows the MoDOT portion, whereas the TIP is more comprehensive. MO1801 does not have a STIP number yet. 10. Section D: Roadways Program 8Q3000 (TIP-$1,028,000; STIP-$673,000) ditto This is MO1603, ITS Operations and Management. The TIP includes City of Springfield funding. 11. Section D: Roadways Program 8Q2248 (TIP-$1,018,000; STIP-$673,000) ditto This is MO1503, ITS Operations and Management. The TIP includes City of Springfield funding. OTO Reponse to TIP Comments Page 12 of 12 16 July 2014