PRIMERA ETAPA

The Metropolitan Transportation Planning requirements at 49 U.S.C. 5303 and the Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Planning requirements at 49 U.S.C. 5304, oblige Metropolitan

Planning Organizations (MPOs) and States, respectively, to coordinate their performance targets, to the maximum extent practicable, with performance targets set by FTA recipients for safety and state of good repair, and to integrate these targets into the planning process. See 49 U.S.C. 5326 and 49 U.S.C. 5329(d)(1)(E). At the MPO and State level, funding allocation for surface transportation investments must weigh the needs for transit safety and SGR side-by-side with the highway performance objectives and targets, as well as with goals for the expansion of the existing transit network. FTA plans to issue a joint NPRM with the Federal Highway Administration on this new performance management framework.

As a reminder of Federal planning requirements, MPOs are established in urbanized areas of 50,000 or more population, and must prepare a long range plan of at least 20 years in duration (updated every 4-5 years). 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(2)(A)(ii). This plan is financially constrained to revenue sources that are “reasonably expected to be made available” over that period. 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(2)(E)(i)(II). Any projects anticipated to receive federal funds or that are subject to federal actions must be included in the long range plan. In addition, the MPOs are required to develop a metropolitan “transportation improvement program,” (TIP) which includes projects consistent with the long range plan that are expected to be implemented in the first four years of the plan. 49 U.S.C. 5303(j). The TIP, too, is financially constrained, in that any project included in it must demonstrate that it is fully funded.

As a result of MAP-21, MPOs and States are now required to establish performance targets that address forthcoming U.S. Department of Transportation-issued national performance measures that are based on the goals outlined in the legislation: safety, infrastructure condition, congestion reduction, system reliability, freight movement and economic vitality, environmental sustainability, reduced project delivery delays, transit safety, and transit state of good repair.

MPOs also must coordinate their performance targets, to the maximum extent practicable, with performance targets set by FTA recipients under the new performance measure requirements for safety and state of good repair. TIPs must include a description of the anticipated progress toward achieving the performance targets resulting from implementation of the TIP. The

investment prioritization developed for the TAM Plan at the individual system level must also be coordinated with development of the long-range transportation plan and the TIP.

Additionally, States are required by 49 U.S.C. 5304(h)(2)(C) to integrate transit safety and transit state of good repair performance targets into the planning process, and are required by section 5304(d)(2)(B)(ii), for areas not represented by a MPO, to select performance targets that are “coordinated, to the maximum extent practicable, with providers of public transportation” to ensure consistency with the state of good repair elements of section 5326(c) and the safety program found in sections 5329(b)(2) and 5329(d)(1)(E). Likewise, the investment prioritization developed for the TAM Plan at the individual system level must also be coordinated with

development of the statewide transportation plan and the statewide transportation improvement program (STIP).

In FTA’s TAM Online Dialogue, one commenter noted that areas with multiple transit systems under the same MPO face particular challenges in coordinating efforts in the planning process. This commenter suggested that it is important that “coordination to the maximum extent practicable” should also extend in both directions, with individual transit systems coordinating their own and SGR performance targets with the regional and SGR performance targets being established by the MPO. FTA raises this comment in order to get additional comments on the merits of this suggestion, and how such a requirement might be implemented.

116. What procedures or requirements should FTA establish to ensure that Transit Agency Safety Plan and TAM Plan goals, measures, and targets from individual transit systems are integrated into the metropolitan transportation planning process?

117. Should MPO’s be required to set a region-wide target for transit state of good repair, or should MPO’s be required to incorporate the both safety and transit state of good repair targets from each transit system within their jurisdiction into the performance-based planning process, or should have MPO’s have discretion to choose between these two approaches? 118. What procedures or requirements should FTA establish to ensure that Transit Agency Safety Plan and TAM Plan goals, measures, and targets from individual transit systems are integrated into the statewide and nonmetropolitan transportation planning process? Since States are already setting the transit SGR performance targets for rural area grants received by the State, are any additional steps needed for integration into the planning process? 119. Should FTA establish procedures or requirements to ensure that Transit Agency Safety

Plan and TAM Plan goals, measures, and targets from individual transit systems are integrated into other metropolitan planning products, such as the Unified Planning Work Program (“UPWP”) and Congestion Management Process (“CMP”)?

120. FTA is interested in hearing recipient and stakeholder perspectives on how the investment priorities set forth in can be most-effectively reflected in the prioritization of projects, strategies, and resources – including Federal, state, and local funds – in MPO Plans and Transportation Improvement Programs, as well as the Long-Range Transportation Plans of States and Statewide Transportation Improvement Programs. Specifically, how should transit state of good repair needs identified in be addressed alongside other investment goals in these financially-constrained plans?

121. How should safety targets be considered in the planning process by State’s and

MPOs? Should MPO’s be required to set a region-wide safety target? Or, should MPO’s be required to incorporate each of the safety targets from each transit system within their

jurisdiction into the performance-based planning process? Or, should MPO’s have discretion to choose between these two approaches? How would each approach make the planning process easier or more difficult for transit agencies?