RTP Financial Element

Home / RTP Financial Element

Fresno COG RTP Financial Element

 

The 2014 RTP brings about many changes to the Financial Element.  In addition to updating the Project Evaluation Criteria to be used in the Call for Projects, Fresno COG will be exploring different sets of revenue projections in order to determine what projects might be best for our region.

 

The Financial Element Technical Working Group was comprised of member agency staff and was tasked with assisting COG staff in updating the Project Evaluation Criteria and developing Revenue Projections.  Information on their meetings can be found below along with more details on the Project Evaluation Criteria, Revenue Projections, and Call for Projects.

 

Financial Element Technical Working Group Meeting Agendas and Attachments:

 

9/19/12 Meeting
10/31/12 Meeting
11/14/12 Meeting
11/28/12 Meeting  —  DRAFT Scoring Criteria Document submitted by The City of Clovis_11-27-12
12/4/12 Meeting
12/12/12 Meeting
12/19/12 Meeting

 

Project Evaluation Criteria

 

The 2014 RTP Project Evaluation Criteria document was developed and accepted by the 2014 RTP Financial Element Technical Working Group.  The Project Evaluation Criteria was approved by the FCOG Policy Board on 1/31/13 and was used in the 2014 RTP Call for Projects.

 

The Project Evaluation Criteria was used to score all of the projects submitted during the RTP Call for Projects.  The projects were scored by mode: streets and roads-capacity increasing, streets and roads-operations and maintenance, bike and pedestrian, and transit.  Once scored the projects were placed in order by score (in each mode) and then compared with the revenue projections.

 

Revenue Projections and Financial Constraint

 

The 2014 RTP is required to be “financially constrained”. To do so, we compare revenue projections for the life of the RTP with projects submitted by member agencies.  When member agencies submit projects that they foresee being completed within the 25 year life of the RTP they include the estimated total project cost.  We are then able to compare the total estimated cost for all projects with our projected revenues to show whether or not we estimate having the funding to complete all of the projects.

 

In previous RTP’s there was one revenue projection and one project list.  In the 2014 RTP, Fresno COG planned to compare four different revenue projections and in turn four different project lists to be incorporated into the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS).  Each revenue projection was developed differently but all four started with the determination that three, of the many available, fund sources are “flexible”; meaning that they can be used for all different types of projects (streets and roads, bike and pedestrian, and transit).  Those funding sources are;

 

  • Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP)
  • Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ)
  • Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP)

Beginning with Revenue Projection 1-Traditional, the percentage of overall funding per mode was calculated using the most recent project programming in the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP).

 

Revenue Projection 2-Increased Active Transportation was then developed by the RTP Financial Element Technical Working Group by making adjustments to the percentages per mode within each of the three flexible funding sources.  The only difference between all of the revenue projections is in those three funding sources.

 

On 1/16/13, FCOG staff took Revenue Projections One and Two to the RTP Roundtable for approval.  The RTP Roundtable suggested that there be a third revenue projection created in which the majority of flexible funds were put towards bike and pedestrian and transit projects.  Revenue Projection 3-Emphasis on Active Transportation represents that direction.

 

On 1/18/13, COG staff took Revenue Projections One, Two, and Three to the Technical Transportation Committee (TTC) and the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) for approval.  The PAC felt that road maintenance was not fairly represented and requested a fourth revenue projection in which all flexible funds that are available for that type of work be put towards road maintenance.  This direction is represented in Revenue Projection Number 4-Emphasis on Maintenance.

 

It was recommended to FCOG staff by the FCOG Policy Board on 1/31/13 that we move ahead with Revenue Projections One, Two, Three, and Four.  A comparison of the percentages per mode in each funding source can be found here.

 

2014 RTP Call for Projects

 

The 2014 RTP Call for Projects was open from January 2-January 25, 2013.  Fresno COG’s 16-member agencies submitted all of the projects that they expect to complete in the 25 year life of the RTP, including streets and roads projects, bike and pedestrian projects, and transit projects.

 

COG staff compared the entire list of projects with the four different revenue projections explained above.  It was anticipated that each revenue projection would create a financial constraint line at which the money runs out; putting some projects above the line and others below the line (keep in mind that the projects were put in order by score and only compared within each mode-not all against each other).  The four different revenue projection lines would then essentially create four different project lists, which may or may not be significantly different.

 

However, when the projects (by mode) were compared with the revenue projections (by mode) it was determined that Revenue Projections 1 and 2 (list A) created the exact same project list and Revenue Projections 3 and 4 created the exact same project list (list B).  The difference between the two lists (A & B) was 5 capacity increasing projects.  Those 5 projects were on list A but not on list B.  It should be noted that the capacity increasing projects were the only project type of which some projects did not make it above the financially constrained line.  For all other modes, all of the projects that were submitted are on the financially constrained list.

 

When it was determined that there was such a small difference between the two lists FCOG staff recommended moving forward with the list that included the most projects.  On 3/28/13 the Fresno COG Policy Board approved staff’s recommendation to move forward with the most-inclusive project listing (List A).

 

The DRAFT 2014 RTP Financially Constrained Project Listing is available here, as well as the DRAFT 2014 RTP Financially Un-Constrained Project Listing.  Neither list is final until the 2014 RTP is approved by the Fresno COG Policy Board, which is anticipated in late March of 2014.

 

Please contact Lindsey Monge at 559-233-4148 ext. 205 or lmonge@fresnocog.org if you have any questions