1. The Truth About the Costs of ITS: Implications for Improving Planning and Operations in Traffic Management U.S. Department of Transportation Local Funding of ITS and Operations Activities Allan J. DeBlasio John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center January 13, 2002

2. VOLPE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTERJANUARY 13, 2002 Purpose of Review To provide input into the reauthorization process and the dialogue on operations by learning to what extent federal dollars are being used at the local level to fund operations activities

3. VOLPE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTERJANUARY 13, 2002 Outline of Presentation Background Observations Findings Interviewee Thoughts

4. VOLPE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTERJANUARY 13, 2002 Background Locations Visited Agencies Represented Positions of Interviewees Guiding Questions

5. VOLPE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTERJANUARY 13, 2002 Project Interview Sites Kansas City Oshkosh York County Charleston Tucson Chicago Olympia Orlando Las Vegas Anchorage

6. VOLPE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTERJANUARY 13, 2002 Agencies Represented County, city, and town governments »Highway, public works, or transportation departments »Community development offices Metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) Transit agencies State DOT headquarters and district offices Turnpike authorities

7. VOLPE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTERJANUARY 13, 2002 Positions of Interviewees City manager Agency directors Department heads District engineers Planning and financial staff Maintenance supervisors

8. VOLPE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTERJANUARY 13, 2002 Guiding Questions How do operations activities compete for federal funds? Are agency managers aware that federal funds can be used? Are operations activities proposed to the MPO for funding? Do (or would) MPOs fund the proposal? If not, how are operations funded?

9. VOLPE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTERJANUARY 13, 2002 Observations 1.There is limited use of federal funds for ITS and operations activities by local and state highway agencies 2.There is limited knowledge of guidelines regarding federal funding for operations activities 3. The definitions used by U.S. DOT differ from those used in the field

10. VOLPE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTERJANUARY 13, 2002 Workshop Goals Organizational Attitude and Public Policy Planning and Deployment Experiences Budgeting

11. VOLPE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTERJANUARY 13, 2002 Workshop Goals Organizational Attitude and Public Policy Planning and Deployment Experiences Budgeting

12. VOLPE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTERJANUARY 13, 2002 Awareness of Funding Local governments »Small urban areas - most do not know »Large urban areas - most know Transit agencies - all know MPOs - most know but don’t advertise State DOT HQs - all know but don’t advertise State DOT district offices »Small urban areas - most do not know »Large urban areas - most know

13. VOLPE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTERJANUARY 13, 2002 MPO Insights Reluctant to evaluate operations activities »Are geared to evaluating capital projects »Difficult to evaluate operations projects Lack expertise in operations

14. VOLPE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTERJANUARY 13, 2002 Competition 1. Local Highway Agencies »Operations over capital >Older municipalities >Older infrastructure »Capital over operations >Fast growing areas >Need for infrastructure >Political pressure »Legislative mandates

15. VOLPE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTERJANUARY 13, 2002 Competition 2. Transit Agencies »No competition if dedicated funds for capital »Operations over capital >Sometimes dictated by state or local officials >Capital funds used for preventive maintenance »More aware of operational impacts of capital expenditures

16. VOLPE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTERJANUARY 13, 2002 Competition 3. State DOTs »Capital over operations >Need for infrastructure and reconstruction >Institutional bias >Strong road-builders’ lobby »Increased focus on operations >High level of congestion >Implementation of ITS >Increased use of management systems »Legislative mandates

17. VOLPE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTERJANUARY 13, 2002 4. Turnpike Authority »Operations over capital >Bond covenant requirements >Customer service »Have a clear definition of operations Competition

18. VOLPE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTERJANUARY 13, 2002 Workshop Goals Organizational Attitude and Public Policy Planning and Deployment Experiences Budgeting

19. VOLPE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTERJANUARY 13, 2002 Few areas have operations projects in TIPs »Capital needs outweigh available funding »Conscious decision by MPO »CMAQ funding is primary source »TSM operational improvements »Some TDM activities Planning

20. VOLPE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTERJANUARY 13, 2002 Traffic operations centers at six sites »Six constructed - two proposed »Construction funds requested »Operations funded with state or local funds »One public-private partnership Deployment

21. VOLPE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTERJANUARY 13, 2002 Workshop Goals Organizational Attitude and Public Policy Planning and Deployment Experiences Budgeting

22. VOLPE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTERJANUARY 13, 2002 Funding of Operations 1. Non-federal Sources »General revenue funds »Dedicated sales, property, gas taxes »Bonds »Toll and farebox revenue »License and registration fees

23. VOLPE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTERJANUARY 13, 2002 Funding of Operations 2. Federal Sources »Federal transit funds »CMAQ funds »Some ITS earmarks and STP

24. VOLPE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTERJANUARY 13, 2002 3. “Operations” activities funded as capital »Construction of control and management centers »Traffic signals, signs, and striping »Include initial operations in construction warranty period Funding of Operations

25. VOLPE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTERJANUARY 13, 2002 Interviewee Thoughts Interviewee Concerns Expressed Needs

26. VOLPE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTERJANUARY 13, 2002 Notable Quote “The amount of paperwork for a $10,000 project is the same as for a $1 million project. It’s just not worth our time!”

27. VOLPE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTERJANUARY 13, 2002 Interviewee Concerns 1. Federal requirements »Same amount of paperwork will be required >Work vs. dollar value >Very small and rural towns and some MPOs did not have staff »Meeting performance criteria will be required »New “operations organizations” will be required

28. VOLPE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTERJANUARY 13, 2002 Interviewee Concerns 2. Loss of funds »Dedicated operations funds will decrease capital funds »Dedicated operations funds will decrease state and local funds »Operations funds will disappear >CMAQ (“start-up and die”) funds >Transit funds for areas reaching 200K population »Concern over loss of flexibility

29. VOLPE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTERJANUARY 13, 2002 Expressed Needs 1. General »Formal recognition that operations funding is a problem »Clarification of existing guidelines >Clear federal definition of operations >List of non-eligible items >Consistency across states

30. VOLPE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTERJANUARY 13, 2002 Expressed Needs 2. Local managers »More training and education given locally »Funding for “planning for operations” »Wanted more direct contact with FHWA similar to FTA and HUD

31. VOLPE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS CENTERJANUARY 13, 2002 Conclusions Most highway agencies do not take advantage of federal flexibility Those that know do not usually tell State and local funds are used for operations Dedicated funding receives a mixed review

32. The Truth About the Costs of ITS: Implications for Improving Planning and Operations in Traffic Management U.S. Department of Transportation Local Funding of ITS and Operations Activities Allan J. DeBlasio John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center January 13, 2002