2015-2018 approved transportation improvement program

0

Strafford Regional Planning Commission & Metropolitan Planning

Organization

12/31/2014

STRAFFORD METROPOLITAN

PLANNING ORGANIZATION:

2015‐2018 TRANSPORTATION

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Strafford Regional Planning Commission 2015‐2018 Transportation Improvement Program 12/31/2014

1

Table of Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 3

Figure 1: Strafford MPO Planning Region .............................................................................................................. 5

2 About the Region ........................................................................................................................................................ 6

2.1 Demographic Trends ............................................................................................................................................ 6

2.2 Road Network & Infrastructure Condition .......................................................................................................... 6

2.3 Active Transportation .......................................................................................................................................... 6

2.4 Passenger Transportation Services ...................................................................................................................... 6

2.5 Vehicles ................................................................................................................................................................ 7

2.6 Work Commuters ................................................................................................................................................ 7

Figure 2: Strafford Region Commuter Patterns ..................................................................................................... 7

3 Development of the TIP .............................................................................................................................................. 8

Table 1: Important Dates in the Project Selection Process ................................................................................... 9

Figure 3: An Overview of Plans Contributing to the Transportation Improvement Program ............................. 10

4 Air Quality Conformity .............................................................................................................................................. 11

4.1 History................................................................................................................................................................ 11

4.2 Current Status .................................................................................................................................................... 11

4.3 Future Status ..................................................................................................................................................... 11

5 Development & Content of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program ................................................ 12

5.1 Relationship Between the Transportation Improvement Program & the Metropolitan Transportation Plan .. 12

6 Financial Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 13

6.1 Fiscal Constraint Background ............................................................................................................................. 13

Equation 1: Method for Calculating Regional Resources .................................................................................... 14

Equation 2: Method for Calculating Programmed Regional Funding .................................................................. 14

6.2 Fiscal Constraint Assumptions ........................................................................................................................... 14

Figure 4: Methodology for Calculating Financial Constraint ............................................................................... 15

Table 3: Financial Constraint Summary by Fiscal Year ......................................................................................... 16

Figure 5: Strafford Allocated and Programmed FHWA funding* ........................................................................ 17

6.3 Financial Constraint Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 17

6.4 Operations & Maintenance ............................................................................................................................... 17

Table 4: Strafford Region’s Operations and Maintenance Revenue Projections ................................................ 17

6.5 Overall Regional Project Summary .................................................................................................................... 18

Figure 6: 2015‐2018 Project Breakdown by Project Type................................................................................... 18

7 2015‐2018 Transportation Improvement Program Project Lists .............................................................................. 19


2

Table 5: Projects in the Strafford Region (including statewide, transit, and municipal projects) for the 2015‐

2018 Transportation Improvement Program (beginning on the following Page)1,2 ............................................ 19

8 Appendices: .............................................................................................................................................................. 34

Appendix A: SAFETEA‐LU MPO Checklist for the 2015‐2018 Transportation Improvement Program .................... 35

Appendix B: Strafford Metropolitan Planning Organization Self‐Certification ........................................................ 36

Appendix C: Public Transit Private Sector Participation Declaration ....................................................................... 37

Appendix D: Funding Program Acronym Key ........................................................................................................... 38

Appendix E: MAP‐21 Federal Statewide and Metropolitan Planning Factors: ........................................................ 39

Appendix F: Public Comments and Questions from the Public Comment Period and Public Hearing .................... 40


3

1 INTRODUCTION

The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is a staged multi‐year work program of regional

transportation improvement projects scheduled for implementation in the Strafford Metropolitan

Planning Organization (SMPO) region. The TIP represents the planned transportation projects that are

expected to be implemented over a four year period (Federal Fiscal Years 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018).

The TIP is prepared by the Strafford Metropolitan Planning Organization in accordance with joint federal

metropolitan planning regulations, 23 CFR 450, issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal statewide and

metropolitan planning factors from the 2012 surface transportation reauthorization legislation, Moving

Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP‐21), are listed among the appendices as is the SMPO self‐

certification process.

The TIP must include all transportation projects within the Strafford metropolitan planning area

proposed for federal funding under Title 23 of the Federal Transit Act, as well as any regionally

significant1 project that will require a federal action. Federally funded transportation projects that do

not appear on the TIP may not continue towards implementation. Projects listed in the TIP must be

consistent with the Metropolitan Planning Organization's Transportation Plan, and the TIP itself must be

found to conform to the air pollutant budgets established by NH's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air

quality attainment. Under conformity rules, "consistent with" the transportation plan is interpreted to

mean that TIP projects must be specifically recommended in the Transportation Plan.

The SMPO’s TIP development process has substantially changed over the past two decades in response

to the requirements of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), the 1990 Clean Air

Act Amendments (CAAA), the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21), the Safe,

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA‐LU), and most

recently, Moving Ahead for Progress in the Twenty‐First Century (MAP‐21). These surface

transportation laws place strong emphasis on the development of both Metropolitan Transportation

Plans (long‐range plans showing at least a twenty year schedule of transportation projects) and

Transportation Improvement Programs that:

1. reflect locally established project priorities

2. are financially realistic (fiscally constrained)

3. are consistent with the air pollutant budgets established in NH’s State Implementation Plan (SIP)

for air quality attainment

4. and are developed with meaningful public involvement

1 Regionally significant projects serve regional transportation needs such as access to and from the major activity centers in the region, and would normally be included in the modeling of a metropolitan area’s transportation network. These projects include, at a minimum, all principal arterial highways and all fixed‐guideway transit facilities. (23 CFR 450.104; http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/textidx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=23:1.0.1.5.11&idno=23#23:1.0.1.5.11.1.1.3)


4

The Strafford Metropolitan Planning Organization’s TIP is prepared by the staff of the Strafford Regional

Planning Commission (SRPC) and is reviewed and endorsed by the SMPO’s Technical Advisory

Committee (TAC). Final TIP approval is received from the SMPO’s Policy Committee. The SMPO is the

designated MPO for the Dover‐Rochester, NH–ME urbanized area. The metropolitan area is shown in

Figure 1 of this document, on the following page.


5

Figure 1: Strafford MPO Planning Region


6

2 ABOUT THE REGION

2.1 Demographic Trends

The Strafford region consists of eighteen communities‐ thirteen in Strafford County, two in Carroll

County, and three in Rockingham County. As of the 2010 Census, the population of the region was

146,895. The region experienced a 10.9% population growth between 2000 and 2010. However,

population growth is projected to slow in the future with an estimated growth rate of 0.4% annually.

2.2 Road Network & Infrastructure Condition

There are approximately 1,875 miles of roads in the region, with an estimated 50% of roads being local

roads. The region’s principal transportation routes include NH Routes 16, 125, 108, and 155 serving

north‐south traffic, and NH Route 11 and US Routes 4 and 202 serving east‐west traffic.

Eight percent of total state highway roads are located within the region. Approximately 75% of state

highway roads within the region are in ‘good’ or ‘fair’ condition, compared to 60% statewide2. Out of

the 149 red listed bridges (bridges considered to be structurally deficient) in the state, eight are located

within the Strafford region.

2.3 Active Transportation

In the Strafford region, non‐motorized mode facilities, such as those for pedestrians and bicycles, vary

considerably from community to community. As the use of walking and bicycling increases in the region

there is a greater need for safe, convenient, attractive, and well‐designed facilities to support these

modes of transportation. It is estimated that approximately 17% of workers in the region commute to

work via walking, public transportation, biking, and carpooling, compared to 12.4% statewide3.

2.4 Passenger Transportation Services

The Strafford region currently has two major public transportation providers: Cooperative Alliance for

Seacoast Transportation (COAST) and University of New Hampshire (UNH) System Transit (includes

Wildcat Transit and Campus Connector). The public transit system is a critical asset to residents in the

region, as it covers over 117 miles and gets passengers to and from key destinations. COAST provides

the following services: fixed route, ADA Paratransit, Commuter Express, and demand‐response. Both

COAST and UNH Transit System ridership has increased over the years, demonstrating an increased

demand for public transit services in the region.

The region has two inter‐regional and inter‐state providers, namely the C&J Trailways bus line and

Amtrak’s Downeaster. C&J Trailways provides trips between Dover and Boston, as well as daily service

from Portsmouth to New York City. The Amtrak Downeaster, managed by the Northern New England

Passenger Rail Authority, runs between Brunswick, ME and Boston’s South Station, with three stops in

New Hampshire (two of which are in the Strafford region).

2 NH Department of Transportation. NHDOT Balanced Scorecard 2011: Measuring, Managing and Communicating NHDOT’s Transportation Performance. 2011. Available at: http://www.nh.gov/dot/org/commissioner/documents/bsc_booklet_weblr.pdf 3 US Census Bureau, 2007‐2011 American Community Survey 5‐Year Estimates.


7

2.5 Vehicles

The 2009‐2013 American Community Survey (ACS) 5‐year estimates indicate that the vehicle‐per‐

household ratio in the Strafford region is 1.9, with approximately 105,702 vehicles available to 56,729

households4. The average number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the state was 9,926 miles in 20105.

While the NH Office of Energy and Planning predicts VMT to increase into 2032, a decline in light duty

gasoline powered vehicles and an increase in light duty plug‐in electric vehicles is projected6.

2.6 Work Commuters

The most recent (2009‐2013) ACS survey indicates that approximately 78% of workers commute to work

alone via a single occupancy vehicle (Figure 2). Approximately 4.6% of workers work from home, nearly

5% walk or bike to/from work, 1.6% commute via public transportation, and 9.8% commute via

carpooling with at least one other person.

Figure 2: Strafford Region Commuter Patterns

Data source for Figure 2: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009‐2013 ACS 5‐Year Estimates.

For a more thorough description of the region and its transportation system, please refer to “Local Solutions for the

Strafford Region” (the regional master plan) and the 2015‐2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan.

4 US Census Bureau, 2009‐2013 American Community Survey 5‐Year Estimates/ Table B25044: Tenure by Vehicles Available. 5 US Department of Transportation, Office of Highway Policy Information. Highway Statistics Series. 2012. Last Updated June 25, 2012. Available at: http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=gb66jodhlsaab 6 NH Office of Energy and Planning. New Hampshire 10‐Year State Energy Strategy. 2014. Available at: http://www.nh.gov/oep/energy/programs/documents/energy‐strategy.pdf

DRIVE ALONE78.1%

CARPOOL9.8%

PUBLICTRANSPORT

1.6%BICYCLE

0.3 %WALK4.5%

WORK FROMHOME 4.6%

OTHER MEANS1.1%

Mode of Transportation to Work in the Strafford Region


8

3 DEVELOPMENT OF THE TIP

The projects identified in the Transportation Improvement Program represent the first four years of

projects and funding from the Ten Year Transportation Improvement Plan. The synthesis of the Ten Year

Transportation Improvement Plan includes extensive public outreach to identify the public’s priorities,

regional planning commission and NH Department of Transportation input, Governor’s Advisory

Commission on Intermodal Transportation review, Governor’s review, NH Legislature review and

passage of the Ten Year Transportation Improvement Plan Act, and final review and signature by the

Governor of New Hampshire. This process creates a ten year schedule for transportation projects and

funding, of which the first four years represent the Transportation Improvement Program.

Projects shown in the Ten Year Transportation Improvement Plan are based on the regional and state

transportation priorities outlined in both state and regional metropolitan [long‐range] transportation

plans. To set these priorities the Strafford Metropolitan Planning Organization solicits project proposals

from communities and other local and regional organizations for consideration in the regional

transportation planning process. The resulting project lists and identified transportation priorities serve

as the basis for transportation planning in the region. The Strafford Metropolitan Planning Organization

began the current two‐year cyclic process of updating its Metropolitan Transportation Plan project list in

January 2013. As part of this process, the Strafford Metropolitan Planning Organization verified project

priorities already in the plan and solicited project proposals for transportation improvements not

included in the current Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Staff contacted the communities in the

Strafford region, along with agencies and organizations that have a role in regional transportation, and

encouraged communities to provide feedback about their transportation projects and priorities. The

project solicitation effort resulted in a list of highway, bridge, bike/pedestrian, transit, rail, recreational

trail and other surface transportation projects, and illuminated the regional priorities for transportation

investments in the future.

In order to implement the goals set forth in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act

(MAP‐21), and the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, the Strafford Metropolitan Planning Organization

uses a set of project selection procedures and criteria to help evaluate regional priorities for

transportation improvements. These procedures are intended to: guide municipalities and other

organizations in developing and submitting transportation improvement projects. They also guide the

Strafford Metropolitan Planning Organization in prioritizing transportation improvements for inclusion

in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program. Since the adoption

of these procedures in 1995, Strafford Metropolitan Planning Organization has modified the process to

address regulatory changes, legislative directives from New Hampshire General Court, and modifications

identified in subsequent Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program

development cycles.

The Strafford Metropolitan Planning Organization meets specified standards for public involvement in

transportation planning, as described in the Strafford MPO Public Participation Plan, adopted March 2,

2014. Standards include advertising public comment periods and hearing dates for documents in

newspapers, posting notices at the region’s major public libraries, providing information to community


9

and agency representatives of the Strafford Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Technical Advisory

and Policy Committees, and by posting information and notices on the Strafford Regional Planning

Commission website. The notices posted at these forums invite the public to attend public hearings,

comment and discuss the process, and voice concerns, questions, and comments regarding the current

transportation system projects, and future transportation priorities outlined in the Metropolitan

Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program. Copies of the documents are

distributed to and made available at public libraries in the Cities of Dover and Rochester, at the Strafford

Regional Planning Commission Office in the City of Rochester, and on the Strafford Regional Planning

Commission website (www.strafford.org).

Table 1: Important Dates in the Project Selection Process

DATE ACTION

January 2013 SMPO project solicitation begins for regional communities and agencies to establish long‐range projects and transportation priorities

April 2013 SMPO submits Draft Regional Ten‐Year Plan Transportation Projects to NHDOT (based on priorities identified in the SMPO Project Solicitation process)

August 2013 NH DOT submits Draft Ten‐Year Plan to Governor’s Advisory Council on Intermodal Transportation (GACIT)

September‐October 2013 GACIT holds statewide public hearings to obtain public input on the Draft Ten‐Year Plan

December 2013 GACIT submits the Draft Ten‐Year Plan to Governor

January 2014 Governor submits the Draft Ten‐Year Plan to the New Hampshire Legislature

May 2014 Legislature approves the Ten‐Year Plan

November 2014 Strafford MPO begins the 30‐day public comment period and public hearing notice for the Draft TIP and Draft MTP

December 2014 Strafford MPO’s Technical Advisory Committee considers the Draft TIP and Draft MTPfor recommendation to the Policy Committee

December 2014 Strafford MPO’s Policy Committee considers approval of the Draft TIP and Draft MTP and submits approved documents to NH DOT

January‐February 2015 NH DOT submits S/TIP to FHWA/FTA for Approval

January‐February 2015 FHWA/FTA approval of the NH 2013‐2016 S/TIP

January, 2015 Strafford MPO Project Solicitation begins for the next 2 year planning cycle


10

Figure 3: An Overview of Plans Contributing to the Transportation Improvement Program

• Lists transportation projects slated for the next four years. Projects must be shown in the Transportation Improvement Program to receive federal funding (unless they are initially grouped under a statewide funding category like projects from the Highway Safety Improvement Program).

• Lists projects receiving federal funding or that are regionally significant, along with breakdowns of anticipated expenditures by year and project phase.

• Demonstrates the capacity to fund projects during the four year timeframe.

• Lists all anticipated transportation projects expected to use federal funding or to be "regionally significant" in the Strafford region.

• It must show consistency with the 2015‐2018 Transportation Improvement Program and the Ten Year Transportation Improvement Plan 2015‐2024

• Demonstrates financial constraint for projects extending through 2040 using latest planning assumptions.

• Project lists must be updated concurrently with the Transportation Improvement Program and Air Quality Analysis Document.

•PLEASE NOTE that since all of New Hampshire is currently designated as 'unclassifiable/attainment', Air Quality Conformity & Analysis Determination is NOT being conducted for the 2015‐2018 TIP. Federal regulations require that MPOs in areas designated as 'non‐attainment' prepare an Air Quality Analysis Determination, which the Strafford MPO would conduct if required. If the AQAD were required, it would:

•Demonstrate that NH's Non‐Attainment area for ozone is within the vehicle emissions budget for ozone set in the NH State Implementation Plan (SIP).

• List the latest planning assumptions for demographic and economic changes in our region (i.e housing, employment).

• Include lists of all modeled and off‐modeled transportation projects to the 2040 horizon year.

• Require approval as a companion document to the Transportation Improvement Program


11

4 AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY

4.1 History

Air quality improvement, particularly with regard to ozone, has been a goal in New Hampshire for years.

For almost two decades agencies across the state, including the NHDOT, NHDES, and the four MPOs,

have been working on efforts to reduce ozone levels, guided by EPA standards. Two standards have

been in effect in New Hampshire since the mid‐1990s‐ the 1997 standard (80 parts per billion (ppb),

measured over an eight‐hour period) and the more stringent 2008 standard (75 ppb, also measured over

an eight‐hour period).

When the 1997 standard was issued, portions of New Hampshire that did not meet the mandated 80

ppb level were designated as “non‐attainment”. As required by the amended Clean Air Act, each MPO

worked to identify transportation projects that would increase non‐motorized transportation and

reduce motorized vehicle congestion so as to reduce emissions. In conjunction with implemented

federal fuel and vehicle emission standards, these efforts successfully reduced New Hampshire ozone

levels to below both the 1997 and 2008 standards to the point that EPA was able to consider declaring

New Hampshire to be “unclassifiable/attainment” in 2012.

4.2 Current Status

As of July 2013, all of New Hampshire is unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 8‐hour ozone National

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), also known as the 2008 ozone standard. The 1997 8‐hour ozone

NAAQS (the 1997 ozone standard) is revoked for transportation purposes in the Boston‐Manchester‐

Portsmouth (SE) NH area. Transportation conformity no longer applies to the ozone NAAQS in New

Hampshire in accordance with the 40 CFR section 93.102(b) “Geographic applicability” of the

transportation conformity rule.

4.3 Future Status

On December 17, 2014 the EPA opened 40 CFR Parts 50, 51, 52, 53, and 58 (National Ambient Air

Quality Standards for Ozone; Proposed Rule) for public comment. In part, the rule states that the EPA is

proposing to revise the ozone standard to between 65 and 70 parts per billion (ppb), down from the

current 75 ppb. Depending on the level chosen, some portions of New Hampshire may return to non‐

attainment. If the Strafford Region is one, SMPO will be required and will continue to meet air quality

conformity requirements. These include conducting air quality analyses through transportation

congestion modelling efforts and implementing strategies and projects designed to reduce

transportation‐related emissions.


12

5 Development & Content of the Statewide Transportation

Improvement Program

The State of New Hampshire is required to maintain a current State Transportation Improvement

Program (STIP). In NH this document is updated on a two year cycle as part of the New Hampshire

statewide ten‐year transportation planning cycle. The State Transportation Improvement Program

development happens in coordination with the four New Hampshire Metropolitan Planning

Organizations. Federal language outlining the state and metropolitan planning organization

transportation planning relationship is related below.

Per federal requirement 23 CFR § 450.216:

“The State shall develop a statewide transportation improvement program (STIP) for all areas of the

State. The STIP shall cover a period of no less than four years and be updated at least every four

years, or more frequently if the Governor elects a more frequent update cycle. However, if the STIP

covers more than four years, the FHWA and the FTA will consider the projects in the additional years

as informational. In case of difficulties developing a portion of the STIP for a particular area (e.g.,

metropolitan planning area, nonattainment or maintenance area, or Indian Tribal lands), a partial

STIP covering the rest of the State may be developed.

For each metropolitan area in the State, the STIP shall be developed in cooperation with the MPO

designated for the metropolitan area. Each metropolitan transportation improvement program (TIP)

shall be included without change in the STIP, directly or by reference, after approval of the TIP by the

MPO and the Governor. A metropolitan TIP in a nonattainment or maintenance area is subject to a

FHWA/FTA conformity finding before inclusion in the STIP. In areas outside a metropolitan planning

area but within an air quality nonattainment or maintenance area containing any part of a

metropolitan area, projects must be included in the regional emissions analysis that supported the

conformity determination of the associated metropolitan TIP before they are added to the STIP.”

5.1 Relationship Between the Transportation Improvement Program & the Metropolitan

Transportation Plan

The Metropolitan Transportation Plan is the long‐range plan for transportation improvements in the

region. The 2015–2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan will be adopted concurrently with the 2015‐

2018 Transportation Improvement Program. As the Strafford region is listed as

“unclassifiable/attainment” for the current EPA ozone air quality standard, no air quality analysis

determination is needed. If one were needed, the Air Quality Analysis Determination would be adopted

concurrently with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and the Transportation Improvement Program.

The Metropolitan Transportation Plan incorporates the projects and funding years shown in the

Transportation Improvement Program; the projects and funding years impacting the Strafford Region

listed in the Ten Year Transportation Improvement Plan 2015‐2024; and any regionally significant

projects (and related funding) that are slated to occur prior to the horizon year (Fiscal Year 2040) of the

Metropolitan Transportation Plan.


13

6 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

6.1 Fiscal Constraint Background

Federal regulations require that expenditures dedicated for each year of the Transportation

Improvement Program can be paid for with the revenues expected to be available in New Hampshire.

23 CFR § 450.324 provides guidance regarding the financial requirements for the Transportation

Improvement Program.

“The TIP shall include a financial plan that demonstrates how the approved TIP can be implemented,

indicates resources from public and private sources that are reasonably expected to be made

available to carry out the TIP, and recommends any additional financing strategies for needed

projects and programs. In developing the TIP, the MPO, State(s), and public transportation

operator(s) shall cooperatively develop estimates of funds that are reasonably expected to be

available to support TIP implementation, in accordance with §450.314(a). Only projects for which

construction or operating funds can reasonably be expected to be available may be included. In the

case of new funding sources, strategies for ensuring their availability shall be identified. In

developing the financial plan, the MPO shall take into account all projects and strategies funded

under title 23 U.S.C., title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 and other Federal funds; and regionally significant

projects that are not federally funded. For purposes of transportation operations and maintenance,

the financial plan shall contain system‐level estimates of costs and revenue sources that are

reasonably expected to be available to adequately operate and maintain Federal‐aid highways (as

defined by 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(5)) and public transportation (as defined by title 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53). In

addition, for illustrative purposes, the financial plan may (but is not required to) include additional

projects that would be included in the TIP if reasonable additional resources beyond those identified

in the financial plan were to become available. Starting December 11, 2007, revenue and cost

estimates for the TIP must use an inflation rate(s) to reflect “year of expenditure dollars,” based on

reasonable financial principles and information, developed cooperatively by the MPO, State(s), and

public transportation operator(s).”

To facilitate regional fiscal constraint calculations, NH DOT provided two sets of numbers in the 2015‐

2018 Draft STIP:

Estimates of total available resources for all projects across the state

Current annual programmed funding amounts for each regional and statewide project

To calculate the portion of these statewide resources theoretically available to the Strafford Region,

MPO staff used the portion attributed by NH DOT to the Strafford Region during the previous STIP

update. NH DOT determines a region’s portion by calculating the portion of the state’s population living

in the region and the portion of the state’s highway lane‐miles present in the region, and averaging

them. For an equation version of the process, see Equation 1 below.


14

Equation 1: Method for Calculating Regional Resources

10.1%

10.1%

To assist in the fiscal constraint calculation process, MPO staff also calculated total regional project costs

by adding the regional portion of applicable statewide project costs to the total project costs of regional

projects. For an equation version of the process, see Equation 2 below.

Equation 2: Method for Calculating Programmed Regional Funding

10.1% Using the assumption (detailed below) that programmed funding amounts also represented the level of

available funds, MPO staff compared total available and total programmed funding to determine

whether the Transportation Improvement Plan is fiscally constrained.

6.2 Fiscal Constraint Assumptions

MPO staff made a series of assumptions during the fiscal constraint calculations. The assumptions

include:

1. That the region’s proportional share remains at the 10.1% calculated during the previous STIP

update;

2. That the same share applies to the programmed funding estimates for statewide projects

provided by NH DOT in the 2015‐2018 STIP;

3. That local or state match amounts will be made available in a timely manner for any projects

that require such;

4. That NH DOT has determined that the appropriate funds will be available for all projects that

include federal funds and are programmed by NH DOT

The Strafford Metropolitan Planning Organization relies on NH DOT’s fiscal constraint analysis at the

statewide level to assure the fiscal constraint of the regional Transportation Improvement Program.

Regional shares of statewide projects have a significant impact on regional funding calculations.

NH DOT regularly completes cost estimates, which are calculated in “year of expenditure” dollars using a

3.2% inflation rate. That rate was determined during coordination and discussion between NH DOT and

FHWA. The inflation rate is applied to each fiscal year and is compounded annually. The numbers

reported here are taken from NH DOT reports. It is assumed that no further inflation adjustments are

needed.


15

Figure 4: Methodology for Calculating Financial Constraint

MPO staff selected the Strafford Region projects from the NH DOT's statewide list of regional and statewide projects

MPO staff determined the Strafford Region's share of annual programmed funding for statewide projects by multiplying statewide funding by the region's population and lane mile proportions

MPO staff combined these modified statewide project programmed funding amounts with unmodified regional project funding amounts to reach an estimated Strafford Region programmed funding total

MPO staff adjusted statewide available resource numbers from NH DOT's 2015-2018 Draft STIP and adjusted them to reflect the Strafford Region's maximum share by again using the population/lane mile proportional adjustment

MPO staff compared annual estimated available resources with annual programmed funds to determine financial constraint of Strafford MPO projects


16

Table 3: Financial Constraint Summary by Fiscal Year

Fiscal Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 Grand Total

Statewide FHWA Resources Available1 $174,960,452 $179,137,090 $184,869,477 $190,785,301 $729,752,320

Theoretical SMPO Region FHWA Allocation (10.1%)2 $17,671,006 $18,092,846 $18,671,817 $19,269,315 $73,704,984

SMPO Region FHWA Resources Available3 $9,096,537 $12,064,951 $5,445,916 $6,519,418 $33,126,823

SMPO Region FHWA Programmed1,4 $9,096,537 $12,064,951 $5,445,916 $6,519,418 $33,126,823

SMPO Region FHWA Net Resources5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Statewide FTA Resources Available1 $17,001,211 $19,737,412 $17,797,091 $20,065,127 $74,600,841

SMPO Region FTA Resources Available3,6,9 $2,160,033 $2,146,026 $2,128,629 $2,047,676 $8,482,364

SMPO Region FTA Programmed1,4,9 $2,160,033 $2,146,026 $2,128,629 $2,047,676 $8,482,364

SMPO Region FTA Net Resources5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

SMPO Region DOT Resources Available3,6,7,8,10 $30,058,565 $36,967,953 $41,632,217 $29,108,384 $137,767,119

SMPO Region DOT Programmed1,4,8,10 $30,058,565 $36,967,953 $41,632,217 $29,108,384 $137,767,119

SMPO Region DOT Net Resources5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

SMPO Region Local/Other Resources Available3,6,7,11 $1,376,043 $1,038,573 $1,068,576 $1,087,705 $4,570,897

SMPO Region Local/Other Programmed1,4,11 $1,376,043 $1,038,573 $1,068,576 $1,087,705 $4,570,897

SMPO Region Local/Other Net Resources5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

FY Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 1 Taken from the 2015‐2018 Draft STIP 2 Assumes that the regional portions of statewide population and lane miles remains consistent from the previous STIP 3 Assumes that funds are only programmed at the state level if resources are available; thus available resources equal programmed funds 4 Equals programmed funds from regional projects plus 10.1% of programmed funds from applicable statewide projects 5 Equals regional "resources available" minus regional "programmed funding" 6 Theoretical regional allocation numbers are not available due to the inclusion of projects shared between regions 7 Statewide "resources available" numbers are not available at this time 8 Includes Turnpike funds and Toll Credits 9 Includes funding (ranges from $1.2M ‐ $1.4M annually for the 2015‐2018 period) that is fully accounted for in both Rockingham Planning Commission's TIP and Strafford Regional Planning Commission's TIP 10 Includes funding (ranges from $28M ‐ $40M annually for the 2015‐2018 period) that is fully accounted for in both Rockingham Planning Commission's TIP and Strafford Regional Planning Commission's TIP 11 Includes funding (ranges from $180K ‐ $230K annually for the 2015‐2018 period) that is fully accounted for in both Rockingham Planning Commission's TIP and Strafford Regional Planning Commission's TIP


17

Figure 5: Strafford Allocated and Programmed FHWA funding*

*Limited to FHWA funding (does not include FTA funding) because detailed per‐region funding for projects shared between regions is not currently available

6.3 Financial Constraint Conclusion

Based on the numbers as reported above and using the assumptions described earlier, the Strafford

Region is fiscally constrained for the entire 2015‐2018 period.

6.4 Operations & Maintenance

23 CFR Part 450.322(f)(10) requires that “[f]or purposes of transportation system operations and maintenance, the financial plan shall contain system‐level estimates of costs and revenue sources that are reasonable expected to be available to adequately operate and maintain Federal‐aid highways…”. The estimates of resources and programmed revenues shown in Table 3 are based on NHDOT figures from the draft 2015‐2018 STIP made available on November 11, 2014. MPO staff determined Strafford Region’s resources by applying the standard DOT regional apportionment percentage that has been used in past STIP updates. The 10.1% comes from averaging the region’s percentage of statewide population and of statewide lane miles. Operations and Maintenance needs for locally maintained road networks are not available at this time.

Table 4: Strafford Region’s Operations and Maintenance Revenue Projections

Statewide O&M Resources (DOT‐Operations)

Fiscal Year

Statewide Available O&M

Funds

Statewide Programmed O&M

Funds Strafford's Percentage

Strafford Available O&M Funds (Theoretical)

2015 $125,372,492 $125,372,492 10.1% $12,662,622

2016 $125,000,000 $125,000,000 10.1% $12,625,000

2017 $125,000,000 $125,000,000 10.1% $12,625,000

2018 $125,000,000 $125,000,000 10.1% $12,625,000

Source: NH DOT (2015‐2018 Draft STIP Update)


18

6.5 Overall Regional Project Summary

Figure 6: 2015‐2018 Project Breakdown by Project Type

*Includes projects funded by FHWA, FTA, NHDOT/Turnpike, local municipalities, and other monies

$12,031,092 $9,682,460

$700,000

$67,522,653

$64,784,329

Total Cost of Strafford MPO Regional Projects by Type in the 2015-2018 TIP

Transit/CongestionManagement

Livability-Bike/Pedestrian

Intersection/Safety

Bridge

Capacity/Expansion

10 Projects

5 Projects

1 Project

4 Projects

4 Projects

Total Number of Strafford MPO Regional Projects by Type in the

2015-2018 STIP

Transit/CongestionManagement

Livability-Bike/Pedestrian

Intersection/Safety

Bridge

Capacity/Expansion


19

7 2015‐2018 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT LISTS

A primary element of the Transportation Improvement Program is the list of transportation projects expected to take place over the 2015‐2018 period. The list consists of federally funded and/or regionally significant transportation projects taking place in the Strafford Region. Included in the project lists is the information listed below:

The project Town/Name

The State Identification Number

The Route/Road

The Scope of Work for the project

Annual Funding by project Phase and by Government Entity (funding source)

Project costs totaled by year and by Government Entity per Phase

Total cost for the relevant years A KMZ file that will allow the reader to view project locations and project information on Google Earth can be downloaded from the Strafford Regional Planning Commission website: www.strafford.org

Table 5: Projects in the Strafford Region (including statewide, transit, and municipal

projects) for the 2015‐2018 Transportation Improvement Program (beginning on the

following Page)1,2 1 The funding for projects 68069, 5670, 2691, 3067, 3068, 3069, 3070, and 3503 (COAST projects) and for projects 11238, 11238K, 11238M, 11238O, 11238Q, and 11238S (turnpike‐funded projects) has been fully accounted for in both Rockingham Planning Commission's TIP and Strafford Regional Planning Commission's TIP. 2 Errors discovered after inter‐regional projects had already been approved by another regional planning commission will be addressed in Amendment 1. (Applies to projects on pages 20 and 21.)


C = Construction P = Planning PE = Preliminary Engineering ROW = Right of Way Acquisition 20

Project Name State # Route/Road Scope Summary Phase Government Entity Code

2015 2016 2017 2018 Grand Total

5310 Elderly & Disabled

FTA5310 N/A 5310 Program PE FTA $1,680,000 $1,733,760 $1,789,240 $1,846,496 $7,049,496

Other $420,000 $433,440 $447,310 $461,624 $1,762,374

FTA5310 Total

$2,100,000 $2,167,200 $2,236,550 $2,308,120 $8,811,870

5311 Rural FTA5311 N/A FTA 5311 Program PE FTA $3,360,000 $3,550,080 $3,748,884 $3,956,777 $14,615,742

Other $840,000 $887,520 $937,221 $989,194 $3,653,935

FTA5311 Total

$4,200,000 $4,437,600 $4,686,106 $4,945,971 $18,269,677

COAST* 68069

varies

Capital equipment purchases and operating support for COAST bus services PE NH DOT $890,843 $923,124 $952,664 $2,766,631

68069 Total $890,843 $923,124 $952,664 $2,766,631

COAST‐1* 5670 TRANSIT Operating Assistance. PE FTA $490,000 $505,680 $521,862 $538,561 $2,056,103

Other $490,000 $505,680 $521,862 $538,561 $2,056,103

5670 Total $980,000 $1,011,360 $1,043,724 $1,077,123 $4,112,206

COAST‐2* 2691 TRANSIT COAST PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE PE FTA $352,000 $363,264 $374,888 $386,885 $1,477,037

Other $88,000 $90,816 $93,722 $96,721 $369,259

2691 Total $440,000 $454,080 $468,611 $483,606 $1,846,297

COAST‐3* 3067 TRANSIT MISCELLANEOUS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT.

PE FTA $53,760 $55,480 $57,256 $59,088 $225,584

Other $13,440 $13,870 $14,314 $14,772 $56,396

3067 Total $67,200 $69,350 $71,570 $73,860 $281,980

*Errors discovered after inter‐regional projects had already been approved by another regional planning commission will be addressed in Amendment 1.




2015 2016 2017 2018 Grand Total

COAST‐4* 3068 TRANSIT MISCELLANEOUS BUS STATION EQUIPMENT

PE FTA $28,160 $29,061 $29,991 $30,951 $118,163

Other $7,040 $7,265 $7,498 $7,738 $29,541

3068 Total $35,200 $36,326 $37,489 $38,688 $147,704

COAST‐5* 3069 TRANSIT GENERAL & COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING

PE FTA $64,000 $66,048 $68,162 $70,343 $268,552

Other $16,000 $16,512 $17,040 $17,586 $67,138

3069 Total $80,000 $82,560 $85,202 $87,928 $335,690

COAST‐6* 3070 TRANSIT ADA OPERATIONS. PE FTA $156,000 $160,992 $166,144 $171,460 $654,596

Other $39,000 $40,248 $41,536 $42,865 $163,649

3070 Total $195,000 $201,240 $207,680 $214,325 $818,245

COAST‐7* 3503 TRANSIT CAPITAL PROGRAM PE FTA $167,518 $247,680 $153,363 $568,562

Other $41,880 $61,920 $38,341 $142,140

3503 Total $209,398 $309,600 $191,704 $710,702

Dover‐Somersworth‐Rochester

29604 NH 108 Complete Streets (U‐3 alternative) improvements

PE FHWA $317,856 $46,861 $386,885 $751,602

NH DOT $79,464 $11,715 $96,721 $187,900

ROW FHWA $45,408 $338,524 $383,932

NH DOT $11,352 $84,631 $95,983

29604 Total $454,080 $58,576 $906,761 $1,419,418

*Errors discovered after inter‐regional projects had already been approved by another regional planning commission will be addressed in Amendment 1.




2015 2016 2017 2018 Grand Total

Durham 16236 US 4 Bridge Replacement, Carrying US 4 over Bunker Creek

PE FHWA $44,000 $272,448 $316,448

NH DOT $11,000 $68,112 $79,112

ROW FHWA $93,722 $193,442 $287,165

NH DOT $23,431 $48,361 $71,791

16236 Total $55,000 $340,560 $117,153 $241,803 $754,516

DURHAM ‐ NEWMARKET

13080 NH 108 PE & ROW for project PE FHWA $220,000 $220,000

NH DOT $55,000 $55,000

13080 Total $275,000 $275,000

DURHAM ‐ NEWMARKET

13080B NH 108 Reconstruct Roadway and construct bike shoulders on NH Route 108

C FHWA $1,760,000 $3,632,640 $5,392,640

NH DOT $440,000 $908,160 $1,348,160

13080B Total

$2,200,000 $4,540,800 $6,740,800

Durham – Rochester*

20256 NH 125 Implement new public transit services between Rochester and Durham(UNH) along the NH 125 corridor.

PE FHWA $210,588 $210,588

Other $52,647 $52,647

20256 Total $263,235 $263,235

*The known funding source error will be addressed in Amendment 1.




2015 2016 2017 2018 Grand Total

Farmington 16146 NH 153 Replace Bridge carrying NH 153 over Cocheco River (Br No 096/140, Red List)

C FHWA $2,724,480 $2,724,480

NH DOT $681,120 $681,120

PE FHWA $44,000 $44,000

NH DOT $11,000 $11,000

ROW FHWA $154,000 $22,704 $176,704

NH DOT $38,500 $5,676 $44,176

16146 Total $247,500 $3,433,980 $3,681,480

FTA5309 Capital bus/facilities

FTA5309 Various FTA 5309 Program (Capital bus and bus facilities)

PE FTA $1,600,000 $1,600,000

Other $400,000 $400,000

FTA5309 Total

$2,000,000 $2,000,000

FTA5339 Capital Bus/facilities

FTA5339 Various FTA 5339 Program (Capital bus and bus facilities)

PE FTA $1,761,931 $1,823,294 $1,956,560 $2,022,353 $7,564,138

Other $440,483 $455,824 $489,140 $505,588 $1,891,034

FTA5339 Total

$2,202,414 $2,279,118 $2,445,699 $2,527,941 $9,455,172

HAZMAT HAZMAT statewide haz mat

Programmatic project for post construction haz mat obligations

ROW FHWA $24,640 $22,291 $23,005 $23,741 $93,676

NH DOT $6,160 $5,573 $5,751 $5,935 $23,419

HAZMAT Total

$30,800 $27,864 $28,756 $29,676 $117,095




2015 2016 2017 2018 Grand Total

NEWINGTON 11238M NH 16 / US 4 / SPLDG TPK

Spaulding Turnpike (NH Rte 16) Mainline Roadway Approach Reconstruction in Newington

C NH DOT $11,854,623 $11,854,623

11238M Total

$11,854,623 $11,854,623

NEWINGTON ‐ DOVER

11238 NH 16 / US 4 / SPLDG TPK

NH 16 WIDEN TURNPIKE INCLUDING LITTLE BAY BRIDGES FROM GOSLING ROAD TO DOVER TOLL, PE and ROW Only

C NH DOT $308,000 $82,560 $85,202 $475,762

PE NH DOT $733,293 $733,293

ROW NH DOT $25,000 $25,000

11238 Total $1,066,293 $82,560 $85,202 $1,234,055

NEWINGTON ‐ DOVER

11238K NH 16 / US 4 / SPAULDING TURNPIKE

NH 16 / US 4 / SPAULDING TURNPIKE, RECONFIGURATION AND RELOCATION OF RAMPS AND ACCESS

C NH DOT $20,000 $20,640 $21,300 $61,940

11238K Total

$20,000 $20,640 $21,300 $61,940

NEWINGTON ‐ DOVER

11238O NH 16 / US 4 / SPLDG TPK

NH 16 / US 4 SPLDG TPK, Rehabilitate the existing Little Bay Bridge

C NH DOT $5,100,000 $10,165,200 $10,490,486 $4,066,688 $29,822,374

11238O Total

$5,100,000 $10,165,200 $10,490,486 $4,066,688 $29,822,374

NEWINGTON ‐ DOVER

11238Q NH 16, US 4 & SPAULDING TURNPIKE

Reconstruct Spaulding Tpk from LBB to Dover Toll Booth and Exit 6 interchange, incl new soundwalls

C NH DOT $9,307,333 $15,583,200 $16,081,862 $10,661,316 $51,633,711

11238Q Total

$9,307,333 $15,583,200 $16,081,862 $10,661,316 $51,633,711




2015 2016 2017 2018 Grand Total

NEWINGTON ‐ DOVER

11238S

SPAULDING TURNPIKE / LITTLE BAY BRIDGES

General Sullivan Bridge Rehabilitation C NH DOT $7,294,738 $12,780,288 $13,189,257 $33,264,284

11238S Total

$7,294,738 $12,780,288 $13,189,257 $33,264,284

NEWMARKET 13878 NH 108 NH 108, Construct 4' bike shoulders from limits of project 13107 to Newfield town line. 02‐25CM

C FHWA $543,776 $543,776

NH DOT $135,944 $135,944

PE FHWA $18,858 $18,858

NH DOT $4,714 $4,714

ROW FHWA $9,600 $9,600

NH DOT $2,400 $2,400

13878 Total $715,292 $715,292

NEWMARKET 16048 NH 108 Facilty Improvements in Dowtown Main Street(NH Rte 108) area, including Elm St & Willey Court(09‐35)

C FHWA $423,960 $423,960

Newmarket $105,990 $105,990

PE FHWA $800 $800

Newmarket $200 $200

ROW FHWA $800 $800

Newmarket $200 $200

16048 Total $531,950 $531,950




2015 2016 2017 2018 Grand Total

ROCHESTER 14350 NH 202A (WALNUT STREET)

INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO IMPROVE SAFETY THROUGH STRAFFORD SQ, NORTH MAIN, & WASHINGTON ST

C FHWA $560,000 $560,000

Rochester $140,000 $140,000

14350 Total $700,000 $700,000

Statewide 20226 Various Intersections

Evaluate & Optimize timing at 65 signalized intersections to improve traffic flow and reduce delays.

C FHWA $22,000 $22,000

NH DOT $5,500 $5,500

PE FHWA $66,000 $66,000

NH DOT $16,500 $16,500

20226 Total $110,000 $110,000

Statewide CBI PRESERVATION COMPLEX BRIDGE INSPECTION (PARENT)

PE FHWA $200,000 $222,499 $213,005 $219,821 $855,325

NH DOT $50,000 $55,625 $53,251 $54,955 $213,831

State of Maine

$100,000 $100,000

ROW FHWA $4,000 $4,128 $4,260 $4,396 $16,785

NH DOT $1,000 $1,032 $1,065 $1,099 $4,196

CBI Total $355,000 $283,284 $271,581 $280,272 $1,190,137




2015 2016 2017 2018 Grand Total

Statewide CRDR Various CULVERT REPLACEMENT/REHABILITATION & DRAINAGE REPAIRS (Annual Project)

C FHWA $696,000 $718,272 $741,257 $764,977 $2,920,506

NH DOT $174,000 $179,568 $185,314 $191,244 $730,126

PE FHWA $80,000 $82,560 $85,202 $87,928 $335,690

NH DOT $20,000 $20,640 $21,300 $21,982 $83,923

ROW FHWA $24,000 $24,768 $25,561 $26,379 $100,707

NH DOT $6,000 $6,192 $6,390 $6,595 $25,177

CRDR Total $1,000,000 $1,032,000 $1,065,024 $1,099,105 $4,196,129

Statewide FBRPI PRESERVATION BRIDGE REHABILITATION, PAINTING, PRESERVATION & IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (Federal Program)

C FHWA $6,304,000 $6,505,728 $6,713,911 $6,928,756 $26,452,396

NH DOT $1,576,000 $1,626,432 $1,678,478 $1,732,189 $6,613,099

PE FHWA $80,000 $82,560 $85,202 $87,928 $335,690

NH DOT $20,000 $20,640 $21,300 $21,982 $83,923

ROW FHWA $16,000 $16,512 $17,040 $17,586 $67,138

NH DOT $4,000 $4,128 $4,260 $4,396 $16,785

FBRPI Total $8,000,000 $8,256,000 $8,520,192 $8,792,838 $33,569,030

Statewide GRR PRESERVATION GUARDRAIL REPLACEMENT [Federal Aid Guardrail Improvement Program] (Annual Project)

C FHWA $1,504,000 $1,552,128 $1,601,796 $1,653,054 $6,310,978

NH DOT $376,000 $388,032 $400,449 $413,263 $1,577,744

PE FHWA $120,000 $123,840 $127,803 $131,893 $503,535

NH DOT $30,000 $30,960 $31,951 $32,973 $125,884

ROW FHWA $4,000 $4,128 $4,260 $4,396 $16,785

NH DOT $1,000 $1,032 $1,065 $1,099 $4,196

GRR Total $2,035,000 $2,100,120 $2,167,324 $2,236,678 $8,539,122




2015 2016 2017 2018 Grand Total

Statewide HSIP PRESERVATION HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HSIP)

C FHWA $6,750,000 $6,966,000 $7,188,912 $7,418,957 $28,323,869

NH DOT $750,000 $774,000 $798,768 $824,329 $3,147,097

PE FHWA $900,000 $928,800 $1,054,374 $989,194 $3,872,368

NH DOT $100,000 $103,200 $117,153 $109,910 $430,263

ROW FHWA $450,000 $464,400 $479,261 $494,597 $1,888,258

NH DOT $50,000 $51,600 $53,251 $54,955 $209,806

HSIP Total $9,000,000 $9,288,000 $9,691,718 $9,891,943 $37,871,661

Statewide IMPPP PAVEMENT

INTERSTATE MAINTENANCE & INTERSTATE PAVEMENT PRESERVATION PROGRAM (Annual Program)

C FHWA $5,328,000 $5,498,496 $5,674,448 $6,441,633 $22,942,577

NH DOT $592,000 $610,944 $630,494 $715,737 $2,549,175

PE FHWA $90,000 $92,880 $95,852 $98,919 $377,652

NH DOT $10,000 $10,320 $10,650 $10,991 $41,961

IMPPP Total $6,020,000 $6,212,640 $6,411,444 $7,267,281 $25,911,365

Statewide MOBRR Municipal MUNICIPAL OWNED BRIDGE REHABILITATION & REPLACEMENT PROJECTS (MOBRR PROGRAM)

C FHWA $4,800,000 $3,302,400 $4,260,096 $5,275,703 $17,638,199

Other $1,200,000 $825,600 $1,065,024 $1,318,926 $4,409,550

PE FHWA $80,000 $82,560 $85,202 $87,928 $335,690

NH DOT $21,300 $21,982 $43,283

Other $20,000 $20,640 $40,640

ROW FHWA $40,000 $41,280 $46,861 $48,361 $176,502

NH DOT $11,715 $12,090 $23,805

Other $10,000 $10,320 $20,320

MOBRR Total

$6,150,000 $4,282,800 $5,490,199 $6,764,990 $22,687,989




2015 2016 2017 2018 Grand Total

Statewide PRRCS PAVEMENT

PAVEMENT RESURFACING, REHABILITATION & CRACKSEAL PROGRAM & RELATED WORK (Annual Fed Res Prog)

C FHWA $12,620,000 $13,023,840 $13,440,603 $13,870,702 $52,955,145

NH DOT $3,155,000 $3,255,960 $3,360,151 $3,467,676 $13,238,786

PE FHWA $300,000 $309,600 $319,507 $329,731 $1,258,839

NH DOT $75,000 $77,400 $79,877 $82,433 $314,710

ROW FHWA $20,000 $20,640 $21,300 $21,982 $83,923

NH DOT $5,000 $5,160 $5,325 $5,496 $20,981

PRRCS Total $16,175,000 $16,692,600 $17,226,763 $17,778,020 $67,872,383

Statewide PVMRK TRAFFIC Statewide Pavement Marking Annual Project

C FHWA $2,728,000 $2,815,296 $2,905,385 $2,998,358 $11,447,039

NH DOT $682,000 $703,824 $726,346 $749,589 $2,861,760

PVMRK Total

$3,410,000 $3,519,120 $3,631,732 $3,747,947 $14,308,799

Statewide RCTRL LOW VOLUME CORRIDORS

RECREATIONAL TRAILS FUND ACT‐ PROJECTS SELECTED ANNUALLY

C FHWA $900,000 $928,800 $958,522 $989,194 $3,776,516

NH DRED $225,000 $232,200 $239,630 $247,299 $944,129

PE FHWA $72,800 $75,130 $77,534 $80,015 $305,478

NH DRED $18,200 $18,782 $19,383 $20,004 $76,370

ROW FHWA $20,000 $20,640 $21,300 $21,982 $83,923

NH DRED $5,000 $5,160 $5,325 $5,496 $20,981

RCTRL Total $1,241,000 $1,280,712 $1,321,695 $1,363,989 $5,207,396




2015 2016 2017 2018 Grand Total

Statewide RRRCS RAIL RECONSTRUCTION OF CROSSINGS, SIGNALS, & RELATED WORK (Annual Project)

C FHWA $1,089,000 $1,123,848 $1,159,811 $1,088,114 $4,460,773

NH DOT $121,000 $124,872 $128,868 $120,902 $495,641

PE FHWA $39,600 $37,152 $42,175 $39,568 $158,495

NH DOT $4,400 $4,128 $4,686 $4,396 $17,611

ROW FHWA $18,000 $18,576 $19,170 $19,784 $75,530

NH DOT $2,000 $2,064 $2,130 $2,198 $8,392

RRRCS Total $1,274,000 $1,310,640 $1,356,841 $1,274,962 $5,216,442

Statewide SBCM LOW VOLUME CORRIDORS

SCENIC BYWAYS, CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT, PLANNING, AND DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES, CONSERVATION

C FHWA $200,000 $206,400 $213,005 $219,821 $839,226

Other $50,000 $51,600 $53,251 $54,955 $209,806

PE FHWA $120,000 $123,840 $127,803 $131,893 $503,535

Other $30,000 $30,960 $31,951 $32,973 $125,884

ROW FHWA $80,000 $82,560 $85,202 $87,928 $335,690

Other $20,000 $20,640 $21,300 $21,982 $83,923

SBCM Total $500,000 $516,000 $532,512 $549,552 $2,098,064

Statewide SRTS Various SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM C FHWA $940,000 $949,440 $1,006,448 $1,027,663 $3,923,551

PE FHWA $55,000 $56,760 $53,251 $54,955 $219,966

ROW FHWA $10,000 $30,960 $5,325 $5,496 $51,781

SRTS Total $1,005,000 $1,037,160 $1,065,024 $1,088,114 $4,195,298




2015 2016 2017 2018 Grand Total

Statewide SSRR PAVEMENT SECONDARY SYSTEM RECLAMATION / REHAB WITH VARIOUS PAVEMENT TREATMENTS [Parent]

C FHWA $2,320,000 $2,394,240 $2,470,856 $2,549,923 $9,735,019

NH DOT $580,000 $598,560 $617,714 $637,481 $2,433,755

PE FHWA $80,000 $82,560 $85,202 $87,928 $335,690

NH DOT $20,000 $20,640 $21,300 $21,982 $83,923

ROW FHWA $4,000 $4,128 $4,260 $4,396 $16,785

NH DOT $1,000 $1,032 $1,065 $1,099 $4,196

SSRR Total $3,005,000 $3,101,160 $3,200,397 $3,302,810 $12,609,367

Statewide TSMO TRAFFIC Statewide Transportation Systems Management and Operations, ITS Technologies, CARS‐511 Traveler Info

PE FHWA $200,000 $206,400 $213,005 $219,821 $839,226

NH DOT $50,000 $51,600 $53,251 $54,955 $209,806

TSMO Total $250,000 $258,000 $266,256 $274,776 $1,049,032

Statewide UBI ENG & ROW UNDERWATER BRIDGE INSPECTION (Annual Project)

PE FHWA $40,000 $41,280 $42,601 $43,964 $167,845

NH DOT $10,000 $10,320 $10,650 $10,991 $41,961

UBI Total $50,000 $51,600 $53,251 $54,955 $209,806

Statewide LTAP LTAP Municipal Local Techonolgy Assistance Program (LTAP) administered by the Technology Transfer Center @ UNH

P FHWA $150,000 $154,800 $159,754 $164,866 $629,419

LTAP Total $150,000 $154,800 $159,754 $164,866 $629,419




2015 2016 2017 2018 Grand Total

STATEWIDE SPECIAL

DBE ADMINISTRATION

IN HOUSE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FHWA SUPPORTIVE PROGRAM: "DBE COMPLIANCE MONITORING (Annual Program)

PE FHWA $90,000 $92,880 $95,852 $98,919 $377,652

DBE Total $90,000 $92,880 $95,852 $98,919 $377,652

Statewide‐RWIS 25198 Various To install Road and Weather systems around the State.

C FHWA $344,960 $344,960

NH DOT $86,240 $86,240

25198 Total $431,200 $431,200

TRAC TRAC Statewide Implement and participate in AASHTO TRAC program in local high schools.

PE FHWA $17,600 $18,163 $18,744 $19,344 $73,852

NH DOT $4,400 $4,541 $4,686 $4,836 $18,463

TRAC Total $22,000 $22,704 $23,431 $24,180 $92,315

UNH/Wildcat 68070

varies

Capital Equipment Purchases and Operating Support for UNH/Wildcat Bus Services PE NH DOT $240,922 $249,744 $257,736 $748,402

68070 Total $240,922 $249,744 $257,736 $748,402

USSS USSS TRAFFIC Project to update signing on state system

C FHWA $400,000 $412,800 $426,010 $439,642 $1,678,452

NH DOT $100,000 $103,200 $106,502 $109,910 $419,613

PE FHWA $26,400 $27,245 $28,117 $29,016 $110,778

NH DOT $6,600 $6,811 $7,029 $7,254 $27,694

USSS Total $533,000 $550,056 $567,658 $585,823 $2,236,537




2015 2016 2017 2018 Grand Total

Vendor Maintenance of ITS Devices

27022 Various Vendor Maintenance of Statewide ITS devices

C FHWA $88,000 $88,000

NH DOT $22,000 $22,000

27022 Total $110,000 $110,000


34

8 APPENDICES:

A. SAFETEA‐LU Checklist for the 2015‐2018 Transportation Improvement Program

B. Strafford Metropolitan Planning Organization Self‐Certification

C. Public Transit Private Sector Participation Declaration

D. Funding Program Acronym Key

E. MAP‐21 Federal Statewide and Metropolitan Planning Factors

F. Public Comments and Questions from the Public Comment Period and Public Hearing


35

Appendix A: SAFETEA‐LU MPO Checklist for the 2015‐2018 Transportation Improvement Program

SAFETEA‐LU MPO Checklist for the 2015‐2018 Transportation Improvement

Program

Planning and Programming Requirements Yes/

No

Comments

Is the MPO publishing its annual listing of obligated projects?

Yes Available at the website: http://www.strafford.org/transportation/annualproj2010.php

Are safety and security treated as stand‐alone factors in the transportation planning process?

Yes Safety and security are both addressed independently in the planning process, but may result in planning recommendations that address both planning factors.

Does the Transportation Plan include a discussion of environmental mitigation activities?

Yes

Was the discussion of environmental mitigation activities developed with consultation from appropriate federal and state resource agencies?

Yes

Does the Transportation Plan include operations and management strategies?

Yes

Do the MPO TIP and Transportation Plan provide system‐level costs and revenues for operations and maintenance of existing transportation facilities?

Yes NH DOT provides O & M planning level estimates for regions

Are the MPO TIP and Transportation Plan fiscally constrained by year and revenue source?

Yes NH DOT provides system‐level available and project level programmed funding summaries; based on these numbers, the TIP and Transportation Plan are fiscally constrained

Do the MPO TIP and Transportation Plan provide the most recent available cost estimates for transportation projects?

Yes

Are the MPO TIP and Transportation Plan consistent in their project listings and cost estimates?

Yes

Does the MPO TIP and Transportation Plan provide year‐of‐expenditure projects cost and revenue estimates?

Yes

Is the list of projects considered in the regional emissions analysis for conformity consistent with the financially constrained list of projects in the TIP and Transportation Plan?

Yes

Has the Coordinated Public Transit‐Human Services Transportation Plan for the MPO been completed?

Yes

Are visualization techniques used in the development of TIP and Transportation Plan?

Yes http://www.strafford.org/transportation/tip.php for a Google Earth *.kmz file /map data for TIP/MTP projects

Does the MPO have a documented public participation plan that defines the process for providing citizens and other affected and interested parties with reasonable opportunities to be involved in the transportation planning process?

Yes


36

Appendix B: Strafford Metropolitan Planning Organization Self‐Certification

WHEREAS the USDOT Moving Ahead for Progress‐ in the 21st Century (MAP‐21) & Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA‐LU) legislation requires the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to certify that its transportation planning process is in conformance with regulations; and,

WHEREAS the Federal regulations specify that the transportation planning process be in conformance with Title 23 U.S.C. Section 134, 49 U.S.C. Section 5303 and 23 CFR part 450.306 which require that a continuing, cooperative and comprehensive planning process be carried out by the state and local officials; and,

WHEREAS the requirements of Sections 174 and 176(c) and (d) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7504, 7506(c) and (d)) and 40 CFR part 93 have been met for nonattainment and maintenance areas; and,

WHEREAS the requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2000d‐l) and 49 CFR part 21 have been met, and 23 CFR part 450.316 which requires the needs of those traditionally underserved by existing transportation systems, such as low‐income and minority households be sought out and considered, and Indian Tribal government(s) be appropriately involved; and,

WHEREAS the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5332, the Older Americans Act (42 U.S.C. 6101), as amended and Section 324 of title 23 U.S.C., prohibiting discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance on the basis of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, gender, or age in employment or business opportunity have been met; and,

WHEREAS the requirements of Section II 0 I (b) of SAFETEA‐LU (Public Law I 09‐59) regarding the involvement of disadvantaged or minority business enterprises in FHWA and FTA funded planning projects (49 CFR Part 26), and the requirements of 23 CFR part 230 regarding the implementation of an equal employment opportunity program on Federal and Federal‐aid highway construction contract have been met; and,

WHEREAS the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (4U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) and 49 CFR, parts 27, 37 and 38, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) and 49 CFR part 27 regarding discrimination against individuals with disabilities have been met; and,

WHEREAS the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) continues to be financially constrained as required by Section 450.324 of 23 CFR, and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) policy on the documentation of financial capacity, published in FTA Circulars; and, WHEREAS the provisions of 49 CFR part 20 regarding restrictions on influencing certain Federal activities have been met.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Strafford Regional Planning Commission, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for cities of Rochester, Somersworth, and Dover and the Towns of Barrington, Brookfield, Durham, Farmington, Lee, Madbury, Middleton, Milton, New Durham, Newmarket, Northwood, Nottingham, Rollinsford, Strafford, and Wakefield New Hampshire certifies that the planning process is being carried out in conformance with all of the applicable federal requirements and certifies that the local process to enhance the participation of the general public, including the transportation disadvantaged, has been followed in developing all plans and programs.

I hereby certify that this resolution was adopted by the Strafford MPO Policy Committee at its meeting on Friday, October 19, 2012.

Date Cynthia Copeland, AICP Executive Director Strafford Metropolitan Planning Organization

Commissioner Christopher Clement Commissioner of NH DOT

Date


37

Appendix C: Public Transit Private Sector Participation Declaration

The FY2015‐2018 Transportation Improvement Program was completed in compliance with the Strafford

Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Public Participation Plan and Federal Transit Administration

guidelines in regards to the inclusion of private enterprise participation in the transportation planning

process.

There were no proposals received from private business enterprises and no impediments to holding

services out for competition were indicated. To date there have been no known private enterprise

complaints.

The Strafford Regional Planning Commission, designated as the Metropolitan Planning Organization

(MPO) for cities of Rochester, Somersworth, and Dover and the Towns of Barrington, Brookfield,

Durham, Farmington, Lee, Madbury, Middleton, Milton, New Durham, Newmarket, Northwood,

Nottingham, Rollinsford, Strafford, and Wakefield New Hampshire hereby certifies that the local process

for the involvement of the private sector in the transportation planning process has been followed.

Cynthia Copeland, AICP Executive Director Strafford Metropolitan Planning Organization

Date


38

Appendix D: Funding Program Acronym Key

BET Betterment funding for NH DOT District maintenance and preservation

BONDED Bonded funding (a loan NH must pay back over time)

BRIDGE Funding for NH Bridge Programs

CMAQ Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Program

DEMO Demonstration project funding

ER Emergency Relief

Fed Rail Federal Rail funding

HIGH PRIORITY High Priority projects

HP‐DEMO High Priority Demonstration project funding

IM Interstate Maintenance program

MAINE Funding from the State of Maine

MG Minimum Guarantee

MISC Miscellaneous FHWA funding

NHS National Highway System funding

NON Non‐Participating funding (local or other non‐federal funding)

PLH Public Lands Highway

SAB State Aid Bridge program

SAFE ROUTES Safe Routes to School program

SPC State Primary Corridor funding?

STP Surface Transportation Program

STP‐Rail Surface Transportation Program (Rail)

STP‐TE Surface Transportation Program (Transportation Enhancements

TCSP Transportation & Community System Preservation Program

TRR Transportation Research Record

VERMONT Funding from the State of Vermont


39

Appendix E: MAP‐21 Federal Statewide and Metropolitan Planning Factors:

1. Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency;

2. Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users;

3. Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users;

4. Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight;

5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and state and local planned growth and economic development patterns;

6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight;

7. Promote efficient system management and operation; and

8. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.


40

Appendix F: Public Comments and Questions from the Public Comment Period and Public Hearing

The Strafford Metropolitan Planning Organization held its thirty day public comment period from Thursday,

November 20 through Friday, December 19, 2014. The public notice was sent to Foster’s Daily Democrat‐ a

regional newspaper‐ and posted on the SRPC website. The draft documents were also made available at the

Rochester and Dover Public Libraries, at the Strafford Regional Planning Commission office, and on the Strafford

Regional Planning Commission website for public review and comment. At the November 21, 2014 Policy

Committee meeting it was noted that the TIP was in a public comment period and that there would be a public

hearing on December 19, 2014. At the December 5, 2014 Technical Advisory Committee meeting, it was

discussed that the document was in public comment period and comments were welcomed. No comments

were received. A public hearing was held on December 19, 2014 at the Policy Committee meeting and the

following comments received:

12/19/2014‐ SMPO Policy Committee Meeting

Comment – Rad Nichols (COAST)

“I apologize for not having submitted comments previously. I’m a little concerned that the COAST projects are not appropriately listed according to the information we provided the DOT earlier in the fall.”

Response – Cynthia Copeland (SRPC)

“ …I know you sent those in and what we took was the ones that came from the STIP.”

Comment—Steve Pesci (UNH)

“….It might just be a typo or maybe this is how DOT would like it listed: On page 23, Durham to Rochester Project. It’s listed as a Federal Highway Project… I believe we’re getting that funding through the Federal Transit Administration, so I would just like [NH] DOT to check whether they’ve listed that correctly.”


“I don’t think our ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act] programs are listed properly… I know there’s no such thing as ARRA [American Reinvestment and Recovery Act] projects anymore… so anything with ARRA on it, that ARRA reference needs to be deleted.”


“I think it would be really good for our two transit providers to continue to give us their concerns and if they were to give them to us in written format. I think this fits in with some other concerns I had about the federal transit funds in the STIP. I think we probably need to defer any approval or consideration for approval until our January meeting.”


41

Comment—Steve Pesci (UNH)

“…I was looking at [the absence of] the one UNH project [Project 68070, UNH/Wildcat] and I was thinking there must be a typo or must be a problem but now hearing this I share Cynthia’s concern. I mean this is one of the primary things we approve. It’s supposed to be transparent to the public. I think at a minimum we need to have DOT come back with responses to these concerns. “

“I was looking at one of the other COAST projects: it lists the government entity code as NHDOT but it is a CMAQ project.”

Response—Glenn Davison(NHDOT)

“Within the DOT we are in the process of migrating financial systems… we first had this great little Access database, then we went to STIP RMS which became our tracking system. We got that mostly completed… we had some interface challenges and some programming challenges and we kind of re‐wrote it. What happened was the update came right in between managing the old system and running the new system called ProMIS [Project Management Information Systems] now. And so all this data had to be pulled from its original data sources. It wasn’t in one stored database. The information had to come from different places now and I’m guessing somewhere we got our wires crossed for the FTA.”

Comment – Kenn Ortmann (Rochester)

“Isn’t there normally aviation issues included in there as well?”


“That’s my question to DOT… we’re showing every source of federal funds… That’s the issue that we need to have a discussion about. It doesn’t change our fiscal constraint.”

Comment‐‐Kenn Ortmann

“I didn’t see Skyhaven in there [in the TIP] at all.”

Response – Glenn Davison (NH DOT)

“I know we had some discussion because it’s not FTA, and FHWA are in here but other things that are outside of those are not in the STIP… but if they are not regionally significant they were not added. The North Coast TIGER was not in there because it did not rank as regionally significant.”

Comment – Steve Pesci (UNH)

“I thought the old rules were that any USDOT funding had to be in the TIP… If the member of the public were to pick up the TIP they would know all sources of USDOT agency funding, whether it’s Federal Transit, Highway, Rail. If what you’re saying is true, I’m concerned in terms of transparency: the public is now getting a Federal Highways document as opposed to a USDOT list of funding. I think that’s an unfortunate lapse in transparency, if that’s where we’re going, because people are no longer getting a complete picture of the federal transportation funding going into the region.”

Response – Glenn Davison (NH DOT)

“Those are great things to look into. I’ll get more clarity on that.”


42

12/19/2014‐ Email follow‐Up to SMPO Policy Committee Meeting


“…it appears as if any mix‐up revolving around [money] resides in the fact that my spreadsheet only listed the Federal [money] involved in any of the listed projects, which got transposed to be the total project cost for each project.”


“Other issues to note: COAST‐1: not sure why the reference to Nashua in the Government entry [Entity] code column. COAST‐3: Scope of Work [Scope Summary] should be reworded to “Miscellaneous Support Equipment” and eliminate any reference to ARRA. COAST‐4: Scope of Work [Scope Summary] should be reworded to “Miscellaneous Bus Station Equipment” COAST‐7: Scope of Work [Scope Summary] should have no reference to ARRA in it. Statewide FTA 5339 program is not listed at all. Additionally, the following COAST CMAQ projects, which are ongoing, are not listed. ‐commuteSMART seacoast TMA ‐Express Commuter Service”

2015-2018 approved transportation improvement program

Documents