Transportation for Communities - Advancing Projects Through Partnerships
- User Portals
- Applications
Transportation Phases
- Long Range Transportation Planning
- Integrated Programming and Fiscal Constraint
- Corridor Planning
- Environmental Review Merged with Permitting
Check out the Understanding the Decision Guide page
PRO-4
Approve Project Prioritization
Description: At this key decision, the approved project list is prioritized using the methodology previously developed. This step is extremely important to maintain consistency between transportation plans and the TIP. This ensures that the projects going into the TIP are consistent with projects from the planning phases (Long Range Transportation and Corridor).
There is information developed in prior key decisions that informs this step. In order to effectively execute this step, there is essential information from PRO-2 and PRO-3.
Purpose
To develop a prioritized list of projects with associated costs, sequencing, and applicable revenue considerations for immediate programming as funds become available. This project list should be developed in horizon years so that conformity is considered along with fiscal constraint.
Outcome
A prioritized list of projects from the adopted plan that allow the horizon years in the LRTP to reflect the sequencing of projects for the TIP.
Partner Roles | ||
|---|---|---|
FHWA |
Observer |
Observes the prioritization of projects from the adopted LRTP |
MPO |
Decision Maker (urban), No Role (rural) |
Approves project prioritization that is reasonable and equitable |
Resource Agency |
Advisor |
Advise decision makers so that the prioritized mitigation projects and cost from ecological planning inform the prioritization of projects in the TIP. |
State DOT |
Advisor (urban), Decision Maker (rural) |
Provides state perspective on project prioritization |
Process |
Integration Type |
Integration Description |
|---|---|---|
| Land Use and Smart Growth | None. | None. |
| Air Quality Conformity | None. | None. |
| Natural Environment and the IEF | Data From IEF Step 8 - Implement Agreements, Adaptive Management & Deliver Projects | Prioritized mitigation projects, per benefit and cost. This data will inform the prioritization of mitigation projects at PRO-4. |
| Capital Improvement | None. | None. |
| Safety and Security | None. | None. |
| Human Environment | None. | None. |
| Economic Development | Data | Private sector revenue sources that may inform prioritization and sequencing. |
| Greenhouse Gas | Data | Priority projects that support GHG goals/objectives or meet established targets | Results of prioritization that need to be communicated to stakeholders. |
Linkages to other Phases of Transportation Decision Making | ||
|---|---|---|
Key Decision |
What is Linked? |
Purpose of Linkage |
To Long Range Transportation Planning |
||
LRP-10 - Adopt LRTP by MPO |
Plan revenue in horizon years |
To ensure that the LRTP fiscal constraint provides input on project prioritization |
From Corridor Planning Studies |
||
COR-9 - Adopt Priorities for Implementation |
Prioritized list of projects for implementation |
To provide input into or validation of the overall project prioritization established at this key decision |
To Environmental Review |
||
ENV-1 - Reach Consensus on Scope of Environmental Review |
Project prioritization established at this key decision point |
To inform the scoping step of environmental review about related projects, the selection of logical termini, and funding identified for the project |
Policy Questions |
|
|---|---|
Questions about purpose and roles |
For P3 projects, is information on funding, revenue potential, and proposed delivery schedules available from private sector developers to consider during project prioritization? |
Questions about stakeholders |
When and how will the results of prioritization be communicated to private sector partners? |
Questions about the transportation process supporting the decision |
Are all projects on the list eligible as programmed? |
Do the P3 projects identified for programming meet current revenue and financing goals or provide a trajectory for meeting long term revenue and financing goals beyond the TIP timeframe? | |
For P3 projects, are there additional state level requirements that must be met or implementation authority that must be granted before a P3 project is incorporated into the STIP? | |
Has the project prioritization considered the funding, revenue potential, and delivery schedules of P3 projects? | |
Is the project prioritization consistent with the programming methodologies? | |
What is the relative importance of revenue generation as compared to achieving other transportation goals or objectives? | |
Which P3 projects can generate revenues or pay for themselves during the TIP timeframe? Does this information affect the prioritization of such projects? | |
Questions about other phases |
Has the project prioritization considered project readiness? |
Is the project prioritization consistent with the adopted LRTP goals and vision? | |
Is the project prioritization consistent with the adopted priorities to implement from the corridor planning phase? | |
Questions about non-transportation sectors/processes |
Are there additional, state-level GHG related requirements impacting areas outside of MPO boundaries that need to be reflected in the STIP? If so, will these requirements impact MPO/TIP incorporation into the STIP if they are not addressed properly? |
Are there key GHG-related results of the project prioritization process that need to be communicated to stakeholders and decision makers to inform decision making? | |
Are there programmed projects in the current long-range plan or in corridor studies that have GHG emission reduction benefits? | |
Do the projects identified for programming meet GHG reduction goals or provide a trajectory for meeting longer term goals beyond the TIP timeframe? | |
Does the state require a GHG inventory or demonstration of GHG reduction for TIP approval and incorporation into the STIP? If so, does the TIP address GHG requirements? | |
Has the project prioritization considered ecological conservation, restoration and mitigation projects? | |
How will funding/revenue projections for each funding program and for each federal, state, and local funding source impact the selection of priority projects? What are the specific impacts to GHG-related projects? | |
What is the relative importance of GHG reduction compared to achieving other transportation goals or objectives? | |
Which of the GHG-reduction projects can pay back for themselves and generate revenues during the TIP timeframe? Does this information affect the priority of such projects? | |
Questions to Gather Stakeholder Interests |
|---|
| What are the factors that should help prioritize the projects? |
| What are the priority projects and why do you consider them priorities? |
| Would you support including projects with P3 involvement or innovative financing options? |
Questions to Incorporate Stakeholder Interests |
|---|
| Are project cost estimates and delivery schedules for P3 projects credible? |
| What did the stakeholders tell us? |
| What did we do in response to the feedback from the stakeholders? |
| What factors does this information depend on? What has been the experience in this region and elsewhere that must be taken into account? |
| What is the rationale for our priorities? If this is inconsistent with what the stakeholders wanted, what was the reason? |
Case Study Example(s): |
|---|
None. |
Supporting Data for the Key Decision |
|
|
|---|---|---|
From other phases of transportation decision making |
Long Range Planning |
Plan revenue in horizon years | Project costs |
Programming |
PRO-2: Methods for allocating revenue |
PRO-3: Approved list of projects |
Availability of related revenue source including private sector funding, as applicable. |
Other funding considerations (e.g. mandated formula allocations, equity between regions) |
Potential cost sharing agreements |
Delivery schedules and revenue potential for P3 projects |
Corridor Planning |
Prioritized list of projects for implementation |
Environmental Review |
No Specific Data |
From other sectors and processes |
Land Use and Smart Growth |
No Specific Data | Air Quality Conformity |
No Specific Data |
Natural Environment and the IEF |
Prioritized mitigation projects, per benefit and cost |
Capital Improvement |
No Specific Data |
Safety and Security |
No Specific Data |
Human Environment |
No Specific Data |
Economic Development |
Revenue sources that relate to economic development potential |
Greenhouse Gas |
Total GHG emissions impact of TIP projects, in relation to GHG related goals and objectives for the horizon years |
GHG-related requirements of the STIP |
From the transportation technical process supporting this key decision |
Project readiness to begin the environmental review process | |
Consistency with conformity analysis and fiscal constraint | ||
Anticipated right of way costs | ||
Other construction activity that may impact | ||
Project-level cost-benefit analysis | ||
Revenue projections for project programming, by fund program and source | ||
Legal restrictions for programming funds for each fund program and source | ||
From stakeholder collaboration |
Data on local support for the project | |
From public private partnership |
No Specific Data | |
The following is a list of data needed to support the key decision. Practitioners collect this information for decision makers to consider. You may add to this list using the comment box at the bottom of the page. Supporting Tools and Technology | |
|---|---|
None. | |
Key Decision Relationship to Other Topics | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Topic | Description | ||
| Performance Measures |
|
||
| Streamlining a Bottleneck Project |
|
||
| Visioning and Transportation |
|
||
| Public-Private Partnerships |
|
||