[MissoulaGov] TPCC report 7-15-08

[Janet Donahue]

Hi Jason,  Thanks for the update.  It's Larry Anderson, County Commissioner, not Larry Evans.  I'm sure you meant Anderson! 

Janet Stevens Donahue
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jason Wiener<mailto:JWiener at ci.missoula.mt.us> 
  To: missoulagov at cmslists.com<mailto:missoulagov at cmslists.com> 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 8:02 PM
  Subject: [MissoulaGov] TPCC report 7-15-08


  I covered for Stacy in Transportation Policy Coordinating Committee yesterday. It was a very interesting discussion-particularly in light of the local option motor fuel tax considered in Public Works-so I thought I would report in. The main item of interest was a discussion of the ranking criteria for projects in the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), which looks at what we are planning to provide as transportation infrastructure in the Missoula area during the next 20 years. We also saw a presentation from the Missoula Ravalli Transportation Management Association and briefly talked about the need for an additional lane at Grant Creek Road and I-90. The Grant Creek/I-90 item will be coming to Public Works as soon as there is time for it (probably on July 30th) so more detail then but the gist of the discussion is that it would be better for the project to come through the LRTP, the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP-essentially a four-year list of transportation projects) and the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO-an policy/technical-advisory entity that manages federal transportation expenditures in the Missoula area) process . Given what we heard about how the LRTP is likely to play out, though, that might not be the most expedient way to get the intersection built either.

   

  There are five documents connected with the LRTP dicusssion: a ranking criteria discussion, three sets of ranking criteria and a universe of projects to which the ranking will be applied. All are attached to the agenda, posted at ftp://www.co.missoula.mt.us/opgftp/Agendas/TPCC/2008/20080715TPCC.pdf<ftp://www.co.missoula.mt.us/opgftp/Agendas/TPCC/2008/20080715TPCC.pdf>. 

   

  Two major elements have been proposed that are departures from the 2004 LRTP: first, project ranking will be done by locals instead of the consultant this time; second, funding for improvements will be allocated prior to ranking. I didn't hear any objections to the first item. I was at the City Council's hearing on the LRTP in 2004 and the consultant took a beating so I'm not too surprised by that. It does seem a little like the consultant off-loading the hard work on the community but it's likely to be contentious either way so it's probably not a bad idea. Allocating funding prior to ranking did receive quite a bit of comment.

   

  The primary implication of compartmentalizing funding before the ranking gets done is that projects in the road, transit and bike/ped categories do not compete with one another in the ranking process. Each gets ranked according to its own criteria and never the twain shall meet. The secondary implication of compartmentalizing funding is that the a priori allocation ends up driving what gets built rather than some set of goals and objectives that bridge the categories. The consultant said it makes plans like this easier in his experience because it's tough to evaluate dissimilar projects by the same rubric.

   

  This allocation process would yield a table similar to the following (apologies if the formatting does not carry, see agenda item 6.3 at the link above if not): 

         
       Road 
       Transit 
       Bike/Ped 
       Total 
       
        City of Missoula 
       .25 
       .26 
       .18 
       .69 
       
        Study Area outside City 
       .14 
       .11 
       .06 
       .31 
       
        Total 
       .39 
       .37 
       .24 
       1.0 
       

   

  I'm skeptical of the approach. Whether we draw artificial distinctions between modes or not, we are dealing with a single pool of funding (albeit with an alphabet soup of components) and a single transportation system. It seems artificially simplistic to just look at the pairwise preferences of survey respondents and then decide the future needs of the system based on their reactions in a several minute survey. Stepping back from the survey's project-driven questions and incorporating the results from the Envision Missoula public process, we ought to be able to generate ranking criteria on which each type of project can compete. Clearly, the ranking criteria offered are not sufficient for such a task, but they might be made so if there were substantial revisions. For instance, the feasibility of a project-including cost, likelihood of funding, even political capital needed to enact-could be ranking categories, ones that attempt to quantify the technical and political considerations that actually go on in budgeting for government expenditures. Further, the ranking itself could be adjusted to grant more leeway to acknowledge the multiple impacts of any project; for instance, the rankers could assign negative points to a project based on its inability to do something, i.e. a project to add lanes does nothing to shift transportation mode or maybe even encourages single-occupancy vehicle trips therefore it scores negative in that category even though it does well in some others. In compiling and weighting the categories, the ranking criteria generate a sense of each elements' relative importance to the single system. Choosing a diverse set of scorers ought to smooth out some substantive disagreements like those who disagree about whether adding capacity actually reduces congestion over the long-term. A scoring process like this would be more complex than what's been proposed but also more like a plan than a scheme for parceling out resources, which is how the compartmentalization strikes me.

   

  Those were my thoughts, anyhow. Others disagreed and felt like we should just move forward with what we have, particularly in light of the September 30th deadline for approving the LRTP. Both Alex Taft (from the Mountain Line board) and County Commissioner Larry Evans impressed upon TPCC the deadline pressure, with Alex providing more of a plug for the recommended allocation scheme or something like it and Larry asking what role fiscal constraint played in deriving the preferences that generated the ranking. His point seemed to be that participants were instructed to disregard fiscal constraints during Envision Missoula and respondents were not asked to consider limits on finances during the phone survey. If people had been forced to cognize the constraints, which are considerable, their notions of what should get priority might shift, i.e. if you want more transit and a second way out of Miller Creek but have to choose, more bus service might be less attractive than a bridge.

   

  Jim Carlson from the Health Department put in a plug for a project to optimize traffic signal timing. Kalispell is doing one of these and there is five lights involved; it costs $120,000. There are 60 lights in Missoula, which would seem to make it a very expensive project if implemented comprehensively. Speaking of expense, it's worth bringing in the total numbers involved in the plan here. The estimate of what funding everything listed in the universe of projects (agenda item 6.4 at the link above) would cost is $1.2 billion. The estimates are sometimes wildly inaccurate ($16 million for a West Side By-pass, anyone?) but they give an order of magnitude about what we think will be needed over the horizon of the plan. Not even half of that money is available.

   

  People kept kicking around a $400 million number as what is likely to be available in federal transportation funding over the life of the plan. We already have committed to projects costing about $200 million, so you can see what kind of gap that leaves.

   

  The shortage brought out another disagreement with the consultants' scheme, which came from Public Works director Steve King and MT Dept. of Transportation district engineer Dwane Kailey. Both mentioned the need for mitigating unsafe conditions, maintaining the existing system and mitigating congestion within it. Neither seemed to feel the a priori allocation scheme allowed enough freedom to prioritize those activities. People from transportation planner Mike Kress to ASUM transportation director Nancy Wilson seemed to echo the importance of those priorities, which are expressed in the ranking criteria but maybe not to an extent that ensures they are respected. At any rate, I took away that there might not be much money left if we focus on what we've got already and to neglect it would be imprudent.

   

  A couple of people responded to those King and Kailey's concerns. Steve Earle from Mountain Line cautioned TPCC that TTAC (the technical advisory board) was "mired in agency-related interests" rather than providing the technical assistance the mostly elected officials on the policy board need. He seemed concerned that those interests were impacting the recommendations that arrive from the technical group. Phil Smith from the city bike-ped office pointed out how crash data was insufficient to measure the absence of safety because people perceiving a lack of safety and therefore avoiding unsafe situations entirely is not reflected in the statistics. It was another interesting point about the imprecision of quantitatively representing the actual happenings on the ground.

   

  Dwane Kailey really capped off the meeting with his final comments, which just made me feel like so much of this work is futile without major systemic changes to the way Missoula and the nation do business. Dwane pointed out that the costs in the project list (the $1.2 billion total) were based on old information, updated as recently as April or May at best. In that time, we've seen the cost of fuel rise dramatically. In the bidding and letting of specific projects, crucial inputs like asphalt binder are going up by something like 66% over what they were just a couple months earlier. So, even though inflationary pressure is built in, our cost estimates may be low because inflation is so out of control on crucial inputs.

   

  Then he got to the revenue picture. The current funding bill expires in 2009 and there's a big push from states who contribute more than they collect in funding to eliminate that situation. That's bad news for the interior Northwest states because we're among those who get the most for the least contribution. The status quo would be insufficient already and it looks like that might be the best we can hope for. What funding we're expecting to have isn't enough and not even that amount is close to a sure thing. It was a bit of a crushing piece of news, and it impressed on me the need for Missoula to make its own way on funding infrastructure. That's more taxes at the local level, whether gas or sales or income or something else, and that's sure to make people who are feeling the pinch feel it worse, although it's tough to figure out how adding 25 cents in local option gas tax (2 cents/gallon on 12.5 gallons) to a $50 tank will even get noticed by the poor guy buying the stuff.

   

  Thanks for your interest.

  J.

   

  *******

  Jason Wiener, Alderman, Ward One

  1238 Jackson St.

  Missoula, MT 59802

  (406) 542-3232

  jwiener at ci.missoula.mt.us

   

  _______________________________________________
  Note: This list is NOT an official service of the City Of Missoula. But posts to this list may be entered into the public record. 
  Subscribe or view archives at Missoulagov.org 
  List Serve hosting provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20080716/b93074a8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 257 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20080716/b93074a8/attachment.gif>