Chapter 6: Development and Implementation of the Unified Transportation Program

Anchor: #CACGHJDD

Section 1: UTP Development

Anchor: #i1007554

Overview

This section describes the process of developing the Unified Transportation Program (UTP). To gain Texas Transportation Commission approval, the UTP integrates the processes of identifying needs, selecting projects, allocating funds, coordinating with MPOs and local governmental officials, and providing opportunities for public scrutiny and input.

Anchor: #i1007566

Section Contents

This section includes an explanation of each step of the UTP development process. The process for the Fiscal Year (X) UTP begins in May (X-2). It culminates in August (X-1) with Commission approval. (For example, the development process for the FY 2002 UTP begins in May 2000 and ends in August 2001.)

Anchor: #i1007577

UTP Development Process

The process flowchart (Figure 6-1 ) reflects the sequential and temporal relationships between the various steps in the development of the UTP. The following list provides a quick reference for Figure 6.1, including text links to the subsequent explanations of each step in the development process.

  • Step 1.1 - The Traffic Analysis Section of TPP provides traffic data for all Categories 3A, 3B, and 8B to the Programming and Scheduling Section of TPP.
  • Step 1.2 - TPP enters traffic data into DCIS.
  • Step 1.3 - TPP ranks projects for information and coordination.
  • Step 1.4 - Tentative selections are made in Categories 1, 3D, 3E, 4G, 6A, 6B, 13A, and 17.
  • Step 1.5 - MPOs and districts coordinate on project rankings in project-specific categories.
  • Step 1.6 - TPP re-ranks projects and returns tentative listing of new Priority 1 and Priority 2 selections to districts.
  • Step 1.7 - TPP prepares draft FY(x)UTP.
  • Step 1.8 - Executive Director reviews draft FY(x) UTP.
  • Step 1.9 - Commission processing time
    • Step 1.9.1 - Commission makes tentative FY (x + 3) Strategic Priority.
    • Step 1.9.2 - TPP sends draft UTP to districts and MPOs.
    • Step 1.9.3 - 45-day public review and comment period
    • Step 1.9.4 - TPP reviews public comments and prepares staff responses.
    • Step 1.9.5 - Commission consideration and Minute Order approval
  • Step 2.1 - TPP recommends category programming levels to FPG.
  • Step 2.2 - FPG proposes category programming levels to Executive Director.
  • Step 2.3 - Executive Director/Commission approve programming levels.
  • Step 2.4 - TPP calculates allocation programs.
  • Step 2.5 - Commission approves allocation programs.
  • Step 2.6 - TPP and districts conduct Trade Fair and Category 13B project selection.
  • Step 3.1 - Commission holds public hearing on project selection process.
  • Step 3.2 - Commission adopts project selection process changes.

FY(X) UTP Development Schedule.  (click in image to see full-size image) Anchor: #i999922grtop

Figure 6-1. FY(X) UTP Development Schedule.

Online users can click utpdevt to see a PDF file of this flowchart.

Anchor: #i1007713

TPP Recommends Category Programming Levels to Financial Planning Group (FPG) (Step 2.1)

Time Period. May (X-2)

Input. The information required for this process step includes the following:

  • current federal-aid program requirements, limitations, and funding levels, including the flexibility to transfer funds between federal-aid programs (refer to Federal-Aid Highway Programs in Chapter 2)
  • state statutory requirements and limitations, with special emphasis on legislation enacted in most recent legislative session, especially the Appropriations Bill
  • Commission strategic goals and directives
  • identification of general needs in the various categories of work, such as congestion relief, rehabilitation, reconstruction, resurfacing, maintenance, safety, etc. Sources of this information may include the Pavement Evaluation System (PES), Bridge Inspection, Inventory and Appraisal System (BRINSAP), Traffic Accident Records, Highway Performance Monitoring Systems (HPMS), Metropolitan Transportation Plans, Rural Transportation Plans, and other input from TxDOT districts, MPOs, and local authorities.
  • cash flow forecasts (Refer to Cash Forecasting in Chapter 2).

Responsible Organization. Programming and Scheduling Section of the Transportation Planning and Programming Division

Actions. The anticipated funding for the 11-year UTP planning period is allocated between the UTP categories based on the following considerations:

  • federal-aid requirements and flexibility to transfer between programs
  • required state matching dollars for federal-aid program
  • projected state funds available for state-funded programs
  • relative needs for congestion relief, rehabilitation, resurfacing, maintenance, safety improvements, etc.
  • legislative directives
  • goals and objectives of Commission and Executive Director.

The appropriateness and adequacy of the UTP categories are reviewed. The need for new categories, elimination and/or consolidation of current categories, and the need for modifying existing categories are also determined.

Output (to Step 2.2). The product of this step is a set of recommendations for the programming levels of UTP categories. The program levels, for those categories for which specific projects are included in the UTP, are recommended for each year of the eleven-year period included in the UTP. For other programs, the programming levels are for shorter periods, consistent with the normal time required to develop the project PS&E. Program levels for the state-funded Bank Balance Allocation Programs are established for varying periods.

These recommendations are sent to the Financial Planning Group (FPG).

Anchor: #i1007812

FPG Proposes Category Programming Levels to Executive Director (Step 2.2)

Time Period. June (X-2)

Input (from Step 2.1). The recommendations from TPP in Step 2.1 are the primary documented input for this process step.

Responsible Organization. FPG

Action. The FPG reviews the TPP recommendations for programming levels, modifies as appropriate, and develops their recommendations.

Output(to Step 2.3). The product of this step is the FPG’s recommendations for the programming levels for the UTP categories. These recommendations are sent to the Executive Director.

Anchor: #i1007844

The Traffic Analysis Section of TPP Provides Traffic Data for All Categories 3A, 3B, and 8B to the Programming and Scheduling Section of TPP (See Chapter 5, UTP Categories, (Step 1.1)

Time Period. September (X-2)

Input. Input for this process step is provided by the Transportation Planning and Programming Division Traffic Analysis Section. The UTP categories requiring updated traffic data are the following:

  • Category 3A - National Highway System (NHS) Mobility
  • Category 3B - Texas Trunk System
  • Category 8B - Texas Farm to Market Road Expansion.

The subject projects are identified using the DCIS (refer to Role of the Design and Construction Information System in the UTP) to obtain a listing of all projects in the three categories which are authorized for LRP status or Priority 2. (Refer to Project Development Authorization in Chapter 3).

Projects in these categories are selected based on a cost effectiveness index. Traffic data is an essential part of calculating the index.

Responsible Organization. The Traffic Analysis Section of the Transportation Planning and Programming Division

Action. Traffic data is developed for each project authorized for LRP or Priority 2 in the three UTP categories.

Output (to Step 1.2). Traffic data, including the current and design year (plus 20-year) average annual daily traffic (AADT), for each project are developed.

The traffic data are submitted to the Programming and Scheduling Section of the Transportation Planning and Programming Division.

Anchor: #i1007908

TPP Enters Traffic Data into DCIS (Step 1.2)

Time Period. August (X-2)

Input (from Step 1.1). The traffic data for all projects in Categories 3A, 3B, and 8B with authorization for LRP or Priority 2 are received from TPP. All traffic data used for UTP project ranking must be provided by TPP (refer to the Transportation Policy Planning Manual, Chapter 3, Section 4).

Responsible Organization. Programming and Scheduling Section of the Transportation Planning and Programming Division

Action. TPP enters the current traffic data into DCIS (refer to Role of the Design and Construction Information System in the UTP.

Output (to Step 1.3). Updated DCIS traffic data for Categories 3A, 3B, and 8B for projects authorized for LRP or Priority 2.

Anchor: #i1007941

TPP Ranks Projects for Information and Coordination (Step 1.3)

Time Period. October (X-2)

Input. DCIS is the source of all candidate projects in the project specific programs that are to be listed in the UTP. The updated information included in DCIS, including the updated traffic data for Categories 3A, 3B, and 8B, is essential for the ranking process.

Responsible Organization. Programming and Scheduling Section of the Transportation Planning and Programming Division

Actions. Using the information in DCIS, TPP generates a ranking for all projects that are candidates for authorization upgrades to Priority 1 or Priority 2. The ranking process is unique to the UTP category. The ranking basis is summarized in Table 5.1 and, at this stage, is for information and coordination only.

The candidate projects ranked for upgrading to Priority 1 are those with Priority 2 authorization, while the candidate projects ranked for upgrading to Priority 2 status are those with LRP authorization.

Output (to Step 1.5). The project ranking information is distributed to the TxDOT district offices and to the MPOs.

Anchor: #i1007978

Executive Director/Commission Approve Programming Levels (Step 2.3)

Time Period. October–November (X-2)

Input (from Step 2.2 and Step 3.1). The category levels recommended by the FPG are the predominant source of information for the review and approval of the Executive Director and the Commission. Comments and recommendations from the public hearing on the project selection process conducted in Step 3.1 are also considered.

Responsible Party. Executive Director and the Commission

Actions. The Executive Director reviews the recommended program levels, comments from the public hearing on project selection process, and submits a recommendation to the Commission for approval.

Output (to Steps 1.4, 1.6, and 2.4). The output includes Commission-approved levels of funding for each UTP category for the UTP planning period, [FY(X) to FY(X+1)].

Anchor: #i1008011

Commission Holds Public Hearing on Project Selection Process (Step 3.1)

Time Period. October (X-2)

Input (from TPP, AVN, and PTN). The Public Transportation Division (PTN), the Aviation Division (AVN), and the Programming and Scheduling Section of the Transportation Planning and Programming Division develop supporting documentation for the public hearing. This documentation includes the following:

  • Transit Programs (developed by PTN)
  • Aviation Facilities Development Program (developed by AVN)
  • Highway Programs (developed by TPP

TPP prepares the public hearing document and related information through coordination with PTN and AVN (refer to Public Hearing on Project Selection Process , in Chapter 3).

The highway-related information presented at the public hearing outlines the proposed basis for allocation of projected federal and state funds to the UTP categories. This includes the federal apportionment of appropriated funds to the State of Texas, TxDOT’s proposed allocation of these funds to the UTP Categories, and the distribution of the federally funded Bank Balance Allocation categorical funds to the TxDOT districts (refer to Chapter 2, Funding Considerations. )

The project selection process and the relative importance of the various criteria proposed to be used by the Commission in selecting projects are also documented (refer to Chapter 3, Project Selection. ).

Responsible Organizations. The Texas Transportation Commission and TPP

Process. The public hearing is conducted in Austin. Any person, organization, group, or representative is provided an opportunity to present data, comments, view, and/or testimony at the hearing. The input received is reviewed and the proposed project selection process is modified as appropriate by TPP, AVN, and PTN.

Output (to Steps 2.3 and 3.2). The proposed project selection process as modified is prepared for Commission approval in Step 3.2.

Anchor: #i1008075

MPOs and Districts Coordinate on Project Rankings in Project-Specific Categories (Step 1.5)

Time Period. November (X-2) through January (X-1)

Input (from Steps 1.3, 1.4, and 3.2; DCIS; MPOs; and TxDOT Districts). Tentative, or preliminary, project rankings for the project-specific categories listed in Table 6.1 are provided to the TxDOT districts and to the MPOs.

Anchor: #CACHJCHGTable 6-1: Source of Tentative or Preliminary Project Ranking

Category

Description

Source of Ranking

1

High-Priority Interstate Highway Corridors

Step 1.4

3A

National Highway System Mobility

Step 1.3

3B

Texas Trunk System

Step 1.4

3D

National Highway System Traffic Management

Step 1.4

3E

National Highway System Miscellaneous

Step 1.4

4G

Surface Transportation Program Railroad Grade Separations

Step 1.4

6A

Bridge Replacement/Rehabilitation

Step 1.4

6B

Bridge Replacement/Rehabilitation

Step 1.4

8B

Texas Farm-to-Market Road Program

Step 1.3

17

Principal Arterial Street System (PASS)

Step 1.4



The projects ranked in these listings include projects with LRP status that will be considered for Priority 2 authority and projects with Priority 2 authority that will be considered for Priority 1 authority.

Additional information will be obtained from current DCIS records. The MPOs and the TxDOT districts will also provide input regarding candidate project characteristics.

Responsible Organizations. MPOs and TxDOT Districts

Actions. The MPOs and TxDOT districts will review the project rankings, current project information, and tentative selections provided from Steps 1.3 and 1.4. MPO and/or TxDOT district ranking of projects in the subject UTP categories are developed considering the project selection authority as outlined in Table 3.1. (Note: The status of specific project development and the projected date of availability of PS&E for letting must be considered prior to recommending Priority 1 status for projects.)

Output (to Step 1.6). The projects as selected and prioritized by the MPO and/or TxDOT districts are submitted to TPP

Anchor: #i1008126

Tentative Selections Are Made in Categories 1, 3D, 3E, 4G, 6A, 6B, 13A, and 17 (Step 1.4)

Time Period. December (X-2) to January (X-1)

Input (from Steps 2.3 and 3.2). The programming levels for the UTP categories, as approved by the Commission in Step 2.3, establish the total funds available in each program for the periods FY (X) to FY (X+3) and FY (X+4) to FY (X+10) for Priority 1 and Priority 2 authorizations. The Commission-approved project selection process from Step 3.2 is the basis for selecting projects. Any modifications in the allocation of federal-aid funds, authorized by the Commission in Step 3.2, are also considered in establishing the funds available in each of the subject categories.

Responsible Organization. Programming and Scheduling Section of the Transportation Planning and Programming Division

Actions. The TPP makes tentative selections of projects to be authorized for Priority 1 and Priority 2. The following factors are considered in this selection:

  • project information included in DCIS
  • selection criteria for the subject UTP categories (refer to the specific UTP category in Chapter 5, UTP Categories. )
  • funding available for projects to be added in the subject categories

Note: The projects that have been included in the previous UTP with Priority 1 authorization and that have not been contracted retain that authorization. Similarly, the projects that have been authorized in the previous UTP with Priority 2 authorization and not upgraded to Priority 1 status retain the Priority 2 authorization.

Output (to Step 1.5). The tentative selections for the subject UTP categories are provided to the MPOs and to the TxDOT Districts (for projects located within their jurisdictions).

Anchor: #i1008178

TPP Calculates Allocation Programs (Step 2.4)

Time Period. December (X-2)

Input (from Steps 2.3 and 3.2). The information used for calculating the districts’ apportionments of the Bank Balance Allocation Programs is as follows:

  • The programming level for the Bank Balance Allocation Programs for FY(X) to FY(X+2) is provided in Step 2.3. The UTP categories involved are the following:
    • Category 2 - Interstate Maintenance
    • Category 3C - NHS: Rehabilitation
    • Category 4A - STP: Safety - Federal Hazard Elimination
    • Category 4A - Railroad Signal Safety
    • Category 4C - STP: Metropolitan Mobility/Rehabilitation
    • Category 4D - STP: Urban Mobility/Rehabilitation
    • Category 4E - STP: Rural Mobility/Rehabilitation
    • Category 4F - STP: Rehab - Urban/Rural
    • Category 5 - Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAC)�
    • Category 7 - State Preventive Maintenance
    • Category 8A - Rehabilitation - Texas Farm to Market Roads
    • Category 9 - State Park Roads
    • Category 10A - Traffic Control Devices
    • Category 10B - Rehabilitation of Traffic Management Systems
    • Category 11 - State District Discretionary
    • Category 13C - NAFTA Discretionary
    • Category 13D - Urban Streets
    • Category 14 - State Rehabilitation
    • Category 16 - Miscellaneous - Railroad Grade Crossing Replanking
    • Category 16 - Miscellaneous - Railroad Signal Maintenance
    • Category 16 - Construction Landscape
  • the allocation formula specified for the subject UTP categories as outlined in Chapter 5, UTP Categories, and summarized in Table 5.1.
  • Commission-approved modifications to the allocation formulas from Step 3.3

Responsible Organization. Programming and Scheduling Section of the Transportation Planning and Programming Division

Actions. The allocation for each district is calculated for each of the subject UTP categories.

Output (to Step 2.5). TPP prepares appropriate Minute Orders listing the district allocations for each of the subject UTP categories. This is presented for the consideration and approval of the Commission in Step 2.5.

Anchor: #i1008330

Commission Adopts Project Selection Process Changes (Step 3.2)

Time Frame. December (X-2)

Input. Input includes the following:

  • the project selection process and the basis for distribution of federal-aid funding for Transit Programs, the Aviation Facilities Development Program, and the Highway Programs as presented at the public hearing in Step 3.1
  • the testimony received at the public hearing testimony in Step 3.1

Responsible Organizations. The Texas Transportation Commission and TPP

Actions. TPP modifies the project selection process and the basis for funding distribution presented at the hearing as appropriate based on the testimony received. A Commission Minute Order is prepared to incorporate the staff-recommended project selection process and the basis for funding distribution.

At a regular or special meeting, the Commission Minute Order is presented to the Texas Transportation Commission for their consideration and approval.

Output (to Steps 2.4, 1.4, and 1.5). The approved Commission Minute Order establishes the project selection process and the distribution of funds for subsequent UTP development actions in Steps 2.4, 1.4, and 1.5.

Anchor: #i1008377

TPP Re-ranks Projects and Returns Tentative Listing of New Priority 1 and Priority 2 Selections to Districts (Step 1.6)

Time Period. January (X-1)

Input (from Steps 1.5 and 2.3). Input includes the following:

  • The programming levels approved by the Commission in Step 2.3 for the following Project-Specific UTP categories:
    • Category 1 - High Priority Interstate Highway Corridors
    • Category 3A - NHS Mobility
    • Category 3B - Texas Trunk System
    • Category 3D - NHS Traffic Management
    • Category 3E - NHS Miscellaneous
    • Category 4G - STP RR Grade Separation
    • Category 6A - Bridge Replacement/Rehabilitation - On-State System
    • Category 6B - Bridge Replacement/Rehabilitation - Off-State System
    • Category 8B - Texas Farm to Market Road Expansion
    • Category 17 - Principal Arterial Street System
  • Projects in the subject categories that have been selected and prioritized by the MPOs and districts in Step 1.5.

Responsible Organizations. Programming and Scheduling Section of the Transportation Planning and Programming Division

Action. TPP re-ranks the selected projects in the subject UTP categories considering the approved program levels and the recommended TxDOT district and MPO prioritization. TPP selects the tentative listing of projects to be added to the Priority 1 and 2 authorization levels in each of the subject UTP categories.

This listing of projects is returned to the TxDOT districts for a final check to assure that project phasing is correct and that no gaps will be created.

Output (to Step 1.7). The output is a tentative listing of projects in each of the subject UTP categories to be added to the lists of projects with Priority 1 and Priority 2 authority. These projects are characterized as follows:

  • Selection of projects has been consistent with the selection process approved in Step 3.2 and with the responsibilities outlined in Table 3.1.
  • The estimated costs of the projects are consistent with the program levels authorized by the Commission in Step 2.3.
Anchor: #i1008484

Commission Approves Allocation Programs (Step 2.5)

Time Period. January (X-1)

Input (from Step 2.4). Inputs are the recommended Minute Orders listing the district allocations for each of the subject UTP categories classified as Bank Balance Allocation Programs.

Responsible Organization. Texas Transportation Commission

Action. The Commission considers the recommended Minute Orders at a regular or special Commission meeting. The Commission approves the Bank Balance Allocation Programs for each of the subject UTP categories in each district.

Output (to Step 2.6). The outputs are approved Allocation Programs.

Anchor: #i1008516

TPP and Districts Conduct Trade Fair and Category 13B Project Selection (Step 2.6)

Time Period. February (X-1)

Input (from Steps 2.5. and 3.2 plus). Input includes the following:

  • The district allocations for the following programs as approved by the Commission in Step 2.5 (These allocations are for FY[X], FY[X+1], and FY[X+2].):
    • Category 2 - Interstate Maintenance
    • Category 3C - NHS: Rehabilitation
    • Category 4D - STP: Urban Mobility/Rehabilitation
    • Category 4E - STP: Rural Mobility/Rehabilitation
    • Category 4F - STP: Rehab - Urban/Rural
    • Category 4C - STP: Metropolitan Mobility/Rehabilitation
    • Category 5 - Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAC)
  • the project selection process approved by the Commission in Step 3.2.

UTP Categories 2, 3C, 4D, 4E, and 4F have the following common characteristics:

  • Federally funded
  • Bank Balance Allocation Programs
  • Projects are selected by the districts in consultation with the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and local governments, as appropriate.

Category 4C is allocated only in Transportation Management Areas (TMAs) and Category 5 is allocated only in non-attainment areas. These categories have the same characteristics as the above listed categories, except that projects are selected by the MPO in consultation with TxDOT.

Responsible Organizations. Programming and Scheduling Section of the Transportation Planning and Programming Division and the TxDOT Districts

Actions (for Categories 2, 3C, 4D, 4E, and 4F). This activity provides the districts an opportunity to present their suggested letting volumes in the federally funded Bank Balance Allocation Programs for the subject fiscal year and the two succeeding fiscal years. It also provides the districts an opportunity to identify any bank balance allocations that will be leveraged with NHS funds to improve project ranking. The sum of the district’s allocations in the subject categories constitutes the district’s letting cap for these categories. Where a district’s projected letting differs from allocated amounts in a given fiscal year, the district has the opportunity to trade that year’s letting authority with other districts to maintain statewide totals for the three-year period—hence the term ‘trade fair’.

This function permits letting of larger projects which exceed annual letting caps and permits letting schedules that are compatible with project development capabilities and urgencies. Additionally, the process produces a letting schedule that will effectively utilize available federal funds in a timely manner.

The process for the Trade Fair is shown in Table 6.2.�

Anchor: #i1019365Table 6-2: Trade Fair Process

Step

Action

1

  • The district develops their projected program of work in the subject categories for each of the subject fiscal years. The project selection process approved by the Commission in Step 3.2 must be followed. The selection of projects must be consistent with the authority indicated in Table 3.1, Project Selection Authority.
  • The allocated funds are the basis for establishing the letting for each category in each year.�
  • Where warranted, the funds may be moved between categories and between years.

2

The district submits their letting volume recommendations, with proposed overruns and underruns, to the Programming and Scheduling Section of the Transportation Planning and Scheduling Division.

3

The submitted letting projections are compiled by TPP.

4

TPP tabulates the submitted information, determines the projected status of funding and develops a spreadsheet reflecting the preliminary, individual district and statewide totals.

5

The districts meet individually with TPP to discuss their proposed letting schedules and to discuss options.

6

TPP counsels with the districts regarding their proposed letting volumes to negotiate trades and to maintain acceptable statewide totals.

7

The resultant letting amounts for each of the categories are for informational purposes only and are included in the long spreadsheet (estimated distribution of apportionment) by year.



Actions (for Categories 4C and 5). TPP also considers the district’s letting plans for Categories 4C and 5 during the Trade Fair meetings with the districts. The purpose is not to trade letting authority, but to report plans for letting projects in these two categories.

Actions (for Category 13B). Projects for this category are evaluated and recommended through the consensus of representatives from the TxDOT districts that have Hurricane Evacuation Routes (Beaumont, Corpus Christi, Houston, Pharr, and Yoakum). The Trade Fair is the time selected for these districts to develop the recommended program for this UTP category. Project selection must be consistent with the process approved by the Commission in Step 3.2 and with the selection authority outlined in Table 3.1 Project Selection Authority.

Output (to Step 1.7). The output is the following:

  • recommended projects for Priority 1 and Priority 2 authorization for Category 13B
  • a schedule for the utilization of federally funded bank balance allocations that will prevent the lapsing of the associated federal apportionments.

    NOTE: The Trade Fair also provides the funding amounts for the districts’ use in the development of TIPs to comply with the financial constraint requirements.

Anchor: #i1008661

TPP Prepares Draft FY (X) UTP (Step 1.7)

Time Period. March (X-1)

Input (from Steps 1.6 and 2.6 plus). Input for the development of the draft UTP includes the following:

Input from Step 1.6 includes specific projects recommended to be added to Priority 1 and Priority 2 authority. This includes projects listed in Table 6.3.

Anchor: #i1019487Table 6-3: UTP Category Projects Recommended for Priority 1 and Priority 2 from Step 1.6

Category

Description

1

High-Priority Interstate Highway Corridors

3A

National Highway System Mobility

3B

Texas Trunk System

3D

National Highway System Traffic Management

3E

National Highway System Miscellaneous

4G

Surface Transportation Program Railroad Grade Separations

6A

Bridge Replacement/Rehabilitation

6B

Bridge Replacement/Rehabilitation

8B

Texas Farm-to-Market Road Program

17

Principal Arterial Street System (PASS)



Input from Step 3.2 includes the specific projects recommended to be added to Priority 1 and Priority 2 in Category 13B - Hurricane Evacuation Routes

Responsible Organization. Programming and Scheduling Section of the Transportation Planning and Programming Division

Action. TPP develops the draft FY(X) UTP which includes the elements described in Chapter 4, Elements of the Unified Transportation Program.

Output (to Step 1.8). The draft FY(X) UTP is submitted to the Executive Director in Step 1.8.

Anchor: #i1008728

Executive Director Reviews Draft FY (X) UTP (Step 1.8)

Time Period. April (X-1)

Input (from Step 1.7). The input is the draft FY(X) UTP developed in Step 1.7.

Responsible Organization. Executive Director

Action. The Executive Director reviews the draft FY(X) UTP. If approved by the Executive Director, the draft FY(X) UTP is submitted to the Commission.

Output (to Step 1.9). The draft FY(X) UTP approved by the Executive Director is submitted to the Commission.

Anchor: #i1008760

Commission Processing Time (Step 1.9)

Time Period. May (X-1) to August (X-1)

Input (from Step 1.8). The input is the draft FY(X) UTP approved by the Executive Director in Step 1.8.

Responsible Organizations. The Texas Transportation Commission and the Programming and Scheduling Section of the Transportation Planning and Programming Division

Action. The actions are outlined in Table 6.4.

Anchor: #i1019584Table 6-4: Process for Commission Actions on UTP

Step

Time Period

Action

Responsible Organization

1.9.1

May (X-1)

Commission makes tentative selection for FY (X+3) Strategic Priority

The Commission adds projects to Category 12 - Strategic Priority. These are projects that will be authorized in Priority 1 and are consistent with the uncommitted Category 12 funding for the period FY(X) through FY(X+3).

Commission

1.9.2

June (X-1)

TPP sends Draft UTP to Districts and MPOs.

The draft UTP complete with the addition of Category 12 projects is distributed to the TxDOT Districts and to the MPOs.

TPP

1.9.3

June–July (X-1)

45-day public review and comment period

Comments should be submitted to TPP as outlined in the letter transmitting the draft UTP to the MPOs.

MPOs�

1.9.4

August (X-1)

TPP reviews public comments and prepares staff responses.

At the end of the 45-day public review period, all comments received by TxDOT are reviewed by TPP. and responses are prepared for the consideration of the Commission. TPP prepares the FY(X) UTP, incorporating appropriate changes based on the comments received. A proposed Commission Minute Order providing for the approval of the FY(X) UTP is also prepared by TPP.

TPP

1.9.5

August (X-1)

Commission consideration and Minute Order approval

The proposed Minute Order and the FY(X) UTP is presented to the Commission for their approval at a regular or special Commission meeting.

Commission



Output. The approved FY(X) UTP is the output.

Previous page  Next page   Title page