1. Module X: Cooperative Revenue Forecasting

2. Federal Requirements “For the purpose of developing the metropolitan transportation plan, the MPO, public transportation operator(s), and State shall cooperatively develop estimates of funds that will be available to support metropolitan transportation plan implementation, as required under §450.314(a). All necessary financial resources from public and private sources that are reasonably expected to be made available to carry out the transportation plan shall be identified.” –23 CFR 450.322(f)(10)(ii) –23 CFR 450.324(h) for the TIP

3. Federal Requirements The written agreement(s) shall include specific provisions for cooperatively developing and sharing information related to the development of financial plans that support the metropolitan transportation plan (see §450.322) and the metropolitan TIP (see §450.324) and development of the annual listing of obligated projects (see §450.332). –23 CFR 450.314(a)

4. Federal Requirements Other Elements TIP Projects show all sources of funds Project selection from TIP –State all funds (non-TMA) –State Interstate, NHS, Bridge (TMA) Operations & Maintenance –System level estimates of revenue

5. Notable Practice: Pennsylvania What are they doing? “Transportation Program Financial Guidance” A cooperative effort; A long-term strategic viewpoint; A Commonwealth perspective; Existing and readily available data; Statewide and regional needs-based decision-making; Responsiveness to near-term issues and priorities; and, Coordination with other agencies and initiatives.

6. Notable Practice: Pennsylvania “A Commonwealth perspective” Interstate Program including portion of NHS and BR Economic Development - $25m/yr (state) Transit Flex - $25m/yr (Federal) Statewide Items - $39m/yr avg (striping, env permitting, etc.) “Spike” funding – 20% of balance

7. Notable Practice: Pennsylvania Who is involved? Pennsylvania Planning Partners – MPOs, RPOs, FHWA, FTA State Transportation Commission, PennDOT The Financial Guidance Work Group

8. Notable Practice: Utah What are they doing? “Utah’s Unified Transportation Plan” Four MPOs and State developed LRPs concurrently Joint Financial Committee developed revenue estimates Common assumptions for new revenues and revenue growth “Congestion Relief” funds distributed based on population projections

9. Notable Practices What is transferable? All MPOs (and RPOs) involved in Statewide process State’s interests acknowledged Methodologies/assumptions are transparent Concurrent schedules for plan development Revenue forecast “Appendix” generated Anything else?

10. Suballocation How is Cooperative Revenue Estimation different from Suballocation? Negotiation vs. Mandate Recognizing needs and how they change Best estimate vs. guarantee Anything else?

11. Resources

12. Next Steps What about our State? Do we have a written agreement on revenue forecasting? Do all the MPOs have the same agreement? What can you transfer from the notable practices?