/J1s- ~CJ ¥'BMETROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZA'TIONS

AND

THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF

HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

AN INFORMATIONAL REPORT

FOR

SUNSET ADVISORY COMMISSION

BY

STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

JULY 1990

INTRODUCTION

This document has been prepared to provide a summary of the history, purpose andfunction of Metropolitan Planning Organizations in Texas and the role of theState Department of Highways and Public Transportation in these processes. Thecontents represent a compilation of relevant documents and information, and anoriginal narration of historical, experienced and interpretive facts pertainingthereto.

These materials were specifically prepared for the information of the staff andmembers of the Sunset Advisory Commission, by the Transportation PlanningDivision of the State Department of Highways and Public Transportation (SDHPT).The information is intended as a general reference to assist the Commission inbetter understanding this facet of the SDHPT role in urban planning and to pro­vide a superior transportation system for future generations of Texans.

Accordingly, the report is submitted with a sincere hope that the members of theSunset Advisory Commission, as well as others interested in Texas transportationplanning, will benefit from the information contained herein.

If there are any questions regarding these materials or if you require any addi­tional information please feel free to contact:

Alvin R. Luedecke, Jr., P. E.State TransportationPlanning EngineerState Department of Highways

and Public TransportationP. O. Box 5051Austin, Texas 78763-5051(512) 465-7346

INDEX

Subject/Reference

Introduction

Index. . . .

I - Background

II - Current Statutory/Regulatory Requirements

III - Existing Overall Process/Practice....

IV - SDHPT Role in Urban Transportation Planning

V - Comparison of MPO's: Policies and Compositions.

Footnotes. .

Appendix A - Acronyms

Appendix B - Federal Rule

Appendix C - Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual 4-4-2 (Planning)

Appendix D - Texas MPO Committee Memberships

Appendix E - Transportation Planning Division - Urban Planning Areas

Appendix F - Questions and Answers on Urban Planning

List of Figures

PI - Urban Transportation Planning Process

P2 - Urban Travel Forecasting Process.

P3 - Unified Work Program (Development Process).

P4 - Transportation Improvement Program (Development Process).

P5 - Texas Metropolitan Planning Organizations .

i i

Page

. i

. i i

1

3

4

.11

.14

.16

5

6

8

.10

.15

I: BACKGROUND

Definitions of Urban Transportation Planning

"Urban Transportation Planning" is an interdisciplinary process for developingand monitoring long- and short-range transportation plans and improvementprograms. These plans and programs are formulated with due consideration ofpresent and anticipated future social, economic, and environmental factors andthe safety and mobility needs of the population of the urban area. It is adynamic process, in that it is continuously monitored to accommodate changes ofland use, economic conditions and other factors influencing travel patterns.Because of the vast amount of capital expenditures required in the implemen­tation of transportation systems (both highway and transit related), these pro­jects could radically influence the land use development in an area or region.Due to the substantial influences that transportation improvements have on thecharacter of the land, it is important that transportation improvements bereflective of the overall regional social and economic objectives pertaining tocommunity development.

Evolution of the Transportation Planning Process and Local Involvement(Metropolitan Planning Organizations)

The 1916 Federal Road Act directed each state to establish a Department ofHighways to choose projects for funding and to supervise the actual construc­tion, thereby establishing the State's responsibility for transportationplanning. This responsibility was further defined and the involvement of localgovernment officials in highway planning was further formalized in the 1960's,when the Federal Highway Act of 1962 required:

"The Secretary [of Transportation] shall notapprove .... any projects in any urban area ofmore than 50,000 population unless he findsthat such projects are based on a Continuing,Comprehensive transportation planning processcarried on Cooperatively by the States andlocal communities."

This "3C planning process" significantly altered the approach to urban transpor­tation planning. By the mid to late 60's, all appropriate urbanized areas hadan urban transportation study underway under the guidance of committees of tech­nical personnel and administrators from both the State Highway Department andimplementing agencies from each urbanized area.

1

The involvement of local officials was expanded in the Highway Act of 1970 whichadded to Section 134, of the US Code, Title 23, that:

1I •••• no highway project may be constructedin any urban area of 50,000 population ormore unless the responsible public officials ofsuch urban area in which the project is locatedhave been consulted and their views consideredwith respect to the corridor, the location, andthe design of the project ... 11

On November 3, 1972,1 the State Highway Department established the requirementfor a two-committee structure for each of the urbanized areas. It mandated thatthe top committee, called the Policy Advisory Committee, be made up of onlyelected officials. The second committee, more of a working/technical expertisecommittee, was called the Steering Committee, and was made up principally oftechnical and administrative personnel but could include elected officials.

To help areas achieve a more integrated approach to transportation planning, theFederal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Urban Mass TransportationAdministration (UMTA) issued regulations in September 1975, merging theirplanning requirements and coordinating their programming requirements. Theseregulations directed the Governor to designate Metropolitan PlanningOrganizations (MPO's) to receive and distribute urban planning funds and tocoordinate preparation of three basic documents; 1) a Prospectus and a UnifiedPlanning Work Program (UPWP); 2) a Transportation Plan (long-range); and 3) aTransportation Improvement Program (TIP) (short-range).

In the early implementation of this requirement, Texas considered the RegionalPlanning Commissions or Councils of Government as the first MPO's. For variousreasons, this was not universally appropriate or desirable and many of the majorcentral cities or other entities were designated as the MPO.

On February 20, 1980,2 the State Department of Highways and PublicTransportation (SDHPT) changed the two committee structure policy to allow for asingle committee structure, if the local urbanized area so desired. It allowedfor one committee, called the Transportation Planning Committee, and could bemade up of both elected officials and technical and administrative personnel.

The SDHPT policy related to committee structure was again changed on December22, 1986. 3 This time, all Departmental policy concerning committee structurewas rescinded leaving structure and membership entirely up to the local area andthe Federal regulations.

As a result of these Federal mandates, departmental (SDHPT) coordination and theparticipation of local units of government in the 25 Metropolitan PlanningOrganizations (MPOs) in Texas have been established. Even though the represen­tative composition of the different MPO's varies widely they all function asefficient planning groups, complying with the spirit and the letter of the law.

2

II. CURRENT STATUTORY/REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

Federal

The current federal statutory/regulatory basis for Urban Transportation Planningis included in the U. S. Code. Title 23, Part 450 and Title 49, Part 613 con­tain the regulations governing transportation planning under FHWA and UMTA grantprograms. Joint FHWA/UMTA Planning Regulations published by the June 30, 1983Federal Register, titled Part VI, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Federal HighwayAdministration/Urban Mass Transportation, Urban Transportation Planning: FinalRUle4 amended these regulations. These amendments were intended to increaseflexibility at the State and local level, reduce red tape, simplify administra­tion of the planning process, and shift certain responsibilities from thefederal level to the State and local level.

The FHWA has incorporated these regulations, with additional guidelines and pro­cedures, in their "Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual, Volume 4, Chapter 4,Section 2" dated February 15, 1984. 5 This FHWA manual defines the MetropolitanPlanning Organization (MPO) as:

"that organization designated as being responsible,together with the State, for carrying out the provisionsof 23 U.S.C. 134, as provided in 23 U.S.C. 104(f)(3),and capable of meeting the requirements of Sections3(3)(1), 5(1), 8(a) and (c) and 9(e)(3)(G) of the UMTAct (49 U.S.C. 1602(e)(1), 1604(1), 1607(a) and (c) and1607a(e)(3)(G). The metropolitan planning organizationis the forum for cooperative transportationdecision-making. II [FHPM 4-4-2, 4,b,(3)]

Also in FHPM 4-4-2, pertaining to the MPO is the following:

"Designations of a metropolitan planning organizationshall be made by agreement among the units of generalpurpose local governments and the Governor. To theextent possible, only one metropolitan planning organi­zation should be designated for each urbanized area orgroup of contiguous urbanized areas. II [5,a]

"Principal elected officials of general purpose localgovernments shall be represented on the metropolitanplanning organization to the extend agreed to pursuantto paragraph 5a of this directive." [5,b]

3

III. EXISTING OVERALL PROCESS/PRACTICE

As was previously noted there are many variations in the representative com­position of the MPO's. There is also varied approaches to actually executingthe transportation planning activities. These differences will be discussedfurther in subsequent discussions.

There are, however, certain basic elements in the planning process that aregenerally common to all of the MPO' s. These elements are graphically portrayedon Figure P-1 and are summarized as follows:

Establishment of the Limits of the Urban Area and the Planning Study Area

The Urban Area - shall include the urbanized area, as established by the Bureauof Census, based on the last decennial census plus such adjacent areas as agreedto by the local officials and the state.

The urbanized area includes the incorporated area(s) plus adjacent areas with apopulation density of a least 1,000 persons per square mile.

The urban area boundaries should be fixed so as to smooth out irregularities inthe urbanized limits, but should not be established or located to accommodate aspecific project.

The Planning Area - shall include the urban area and those areas that are anti­cipated to become urbanized during the long term planning period (traditional 20years) .

Both the urban area and the planning study area may be modified from time totime in response to significant annexations or major development trends.

Development and Maintenance of a Long Range Transportation Plan

One of the IIProducts ll required by federal regulations6 is a IITransportationPlan ll

• Administrative interpretation of this requirement has defined this as aIIl ong range ll (generally 20 Year) plan.

The methodology for developing these plans generally follows the traditionalformat of inventory, forecast, analysis of forecast, plan adoption and planmonitoring:

INVENTORY - Existing community factors, related to transportation facilities,and operations.

FORECAST - Probable rates and configuration of urban growth. This will includedetermining transportation needs as indicated by forecasted travel growth (Thesesteps are reflected on Figure P-2).

ANALYSIS - Of available alternatives to serve the forecasted need.

ADOPTION - Of the selected alternative plan which will most effectively and eco­nomically serve the urban transportation/mobility needs of the area.

MONITOR - Community development with respect to the adopted plan in order torecognize any major deviation from prior a~sumptions. This includes periodicupdating of all data basis including traff1c counts.

4

Figure P-1

URBAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS

METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONPOLICY MAKING COMMITTEE

-CITIES -COUNTIES -SDHPT

-OTHER TRANSPORTATION OR PLANNING AGENCIES

PLANNING WORK PROGRAMS

-UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM(See Figure P-2)

LONG RANGE PLAN

-MONITOR- PLANNING TOOLS

-REPORT- ELVALUATION OF PLAN ALTERNATIVES

-UPDATE- SELECTION OF PLAN

(See Figure P-3)

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS PLAN REFINEMENTMANAGEMENT ELEMENT

- ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

- EV ALUATION OF PLAN ALTERNATIVES - SUBAREA STUDIES

- SELECTION OF PLAN - SHORT RANGE PLANNING

TRANSPORTATION IMPROVMENT PROGRAM

-STAGED MULTIYEAR ELEMENT

- ANNUAL ELEMENT

(See FI gure P-4)

,

IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES

5

4

PROCESS

3

6

Figure P-2

2

URBAN TRAVEL FORECASTING

ECONOMIC ACTIVITY LAND USE TRAVEL TRANSPORTATIONAND POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS FACILITIES

I +ENTORIES

8 ~ 7 ~5 It 8 9 It

ECONOMIC ACTIVITY LAND USE TRIP VALIDATION SELECTIONAND POPULATION FORECASTING GENERATION

~OF TRIP

~OF NETWORK

PROJECTION TECHNIQUES DISTRIBUTION AND ZONESTECHNIQUES MODEL

IYSIS OF 10 +TINGITIONS AND INITIAL ASSIGNMENTBRATION OF ANDCASTING NETWORK ADJUSTMENTNIQUES

11

ICOMMUNITY GOALS IAND POLICIES

12 It 13 14

FUTURE~

FUTURE I I FUTUREI IECONOMIC ACTIVITY LAND USE NETWORK

AND POPULATION III ItI

CAST I t15 18

FUTURE I FUTURETRIP GENERATION --I TRIP DISTRIBUTION

17

I ASSIGNMENT I18

FEEDBACK _I TRANSPORT ATION----~---------------- SYSTEMS ANALYSIS

EMSYSIS 19

I RECOMMENDED ISYSTEM

INV

ANALEXISCONDCALIFORETECH

FORE

SYSTANAL

Unified Planning Work Program (UWP)

Another federally mandated product is an annual (or bi-annual) work programwhich describes the planning activities to be executed, the estimated cost,source of funds, and responsible agency. This work program is to include alltransportation planning activities utilizing federal funds. [See Figure P-3J

7

LEGEND

8

Figure P-3

UNIFIED WORK PROGRAM

(1)- TRACSReview

MPO

I

I(6)

!OIS+ICTI(e.J

MPO - Metro. Planning Organization

D-10P - Transportation Planning Division -Austin

- Document Flow

(2) - Number of Copies to Submit

* - Approval Required by October 1

DEVELOP DRAFT UWP

I CITY I ICOUNTY I IDISTRICTl

II MPO (2) DISTRICT

I 1APPROVAL D-10P

BYPreliminary

COMMITTEE ReviewSTRUCTURE

I D_-1_1_~( 1 ) ---j STATE: (0-10) f-11l---jL..-_D_-_3 _1(2)

For Approval *I

I UMTA ~(2)For Approval *

Transportation Improvement Program/Annual Element

Also required is the preparation of a five year program listing those transpor­tation improvements, within the urban area, that are contemplated for construc­tion (beginning) during that time period. This program includes theidentification, description, approximated cost, and responsible agency for eachimprovement.

In addition to the five year program, specific identification of improvementsthat are likely to be initiated during the first fiscal year is required andconstitutes the "Annual Element" of the improvement program. In addition to theinformation required in the 5 year program the type and sources of funds arerequired in the annual element.

In order for federal funding to be available for a project within a subjecturban area a project must be reflected on the current annual element. [SeeFigure P-4].

Planning Certification

At the time the TIP/AE is submitted to the Federal Highway Administration, theMPO and the State certify that the planning process is being carried on in con­formance with all applicable Federal requirements. This certification must besubmitted with the TIP/AE to obtain Federal approval.

In addition, current directives require that certain MPO's certify that neitherthey nor their subcontractors are engaged in lobbying activities or fileappropriate declarations of those activities. This certification is to accom­pany the UWP for MPO's receiving over $100,000 federal planning funds.

9

DEVELOP DRAFT TIP

I CITY I ICOUNTY I IDISTRICTI

II MPO (2) DISTRICT

I IAPPROVAL D-10P

BYPreliminary

COMMITTEE ReviewI

ISTRUCTURE

Figure P-4

TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

II UMTA ~(2)-1 MPO ~ (1)- TRACS~-~- I Review

If Applicable(6)

10IS+ICTI(6)

I_D_-1_1_~(1l-iSTATE: (0-10) f-l1l-1 0-8

(2)For Approval *

I

LEGEND

MPO - Metro. Planning Organization

D-10P - Transportation Planning Division -Austin

- Document Flow

(2) - Number of Copies to Submit

* - Approval Required by October 1

10

I

IV. SDHPT ROLE IN URBAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

As the designated agency for the receipt and disbursement of federal transpor­tation planning funds the State Department of Highways and Public Transportationhas assumed the overall responsibility for coordinating, supervising, and par­ticipating in programs in the 25 designated urban areas. This involves staffparticipation at the statewide level and on the local or district level in orderto assure continued eligibility for federal highway and transit funding withinthese urban areas.

Some of the principal activities on both levels of involvement are summarized asfoll ows:

Statewide SDHPT Involvement

The Transportation Planning Division (D-10) has been designated to assumeoverall administrative direction of the urban planning program on a statewidebasis. This function involves an interface with local and district planningrepresentatives as well as appropriate representatives of Federal HighwayAdministration in both administrative and technical capacities.

Some of the principal activities of the Transportation Planning Division inUrban Transportation Planning on a statewide basis are summarized as follows:

o Funds Management - FHWA Urban Transportation Planning Funds (Section 134-PL 112Funds)

1. In cooperation with FHWA develops a strategy for distributing the fundsand recommends it to the administration and the State Highway and PublicTransportation Commission for adoption.?Currently, the formula is based on $25,000 per MPO (estimated amountrequired to maintain one full time staff member) regardless of size withthe remainder of the available funds being distributed on a per capitabasis according to the last decennial census.These funds are made available by FHWA on an 85%-15% local match basis.SDHPT provides the "l ocal" match through "in kind" services, therebysimplifying utilization of the funds by the MPO.

2. Disseminates information pertaining to funding to the various MPO'sthrough the local SDHPT planning representatives.

3. Advises the other Divisions and the Administration on needs and availabi­lity of urban planning funds.

11

o Program Administration

1. Serves as liaison between the local planning agencies and FHWA on all mat­ters pertaining to regulations, program requirements, planning activityeligibility and other administrative matters.

2. Makes available to the local SDHPT planning representatives allappropriate data related to regulation or policy changes (both State andFederal ).

3. Consults and/or assists local planners in the development of requireddocumentation including the Unified Planning Work Program, PlanningCertification, Performance Reports and other administrative documentation.

4. In cooperation with the Finance Division, develops policies and proceduresfor contracting with the MPO and for subcontracts between the MPO andthird parties.

5. Monitors Steering Committee meetings to keep the Administration or otheraffected Divisions advised of pertinent activities, positions or proposals.

o Technical Services

1. Provides technical consultation pertaining to data requirements for travelforecasting.

2. Performs numerous traffic inventory activities necessary to evaluate andforecast travel patterns. These services include:

a. Maintenance and collection of permanent traffic recorders necessary toestablish indices pertaining to seasonal, day of week, truck distribu­tion and other data essential to adjusting one day counts into AnnualAverage.

b. Makes saturation traffic counts within each urban area periodically inorder to evaluate the continued validity of the travel demand model.Currently, these counts are made at least once every five years ineach urban area.

c. Publishes traffic maps and data that are used not only by the MPO butalso by private interests in making investment decisions.

3. Provides computerized traffic demand models and forecast information toeach study area.

4. Maintains a computerized base mapping system that is made available to theMPO's.

5. Provides extensive technical support through extensive investment inresearch and training program that enhance the level of expertiseavailable for transportation planning.

12

6. Provides representation on local Technical Committees and Task Forces toenhance the quality of the planning efforts and assure compliance withstate and federal criteria.

7. Provides technical consultation and assistance to the district and localplanning practitioners.

Local SDHPT Involvement

On a local level, the SDHPT district in which the urban (MPO) area is located,is involved in both the policy making and technical aspects of transportationplanning. This involvement includes substantial participation by the districtplanning representative and the District Engineer as well as staff support.

The District Engineer always serves on the policy committee of the MPO. In somecases, other district personnel also serve on the policy committee, this being alocal determination.

The district planning representative is involved on a day to day basis with theMPO staff, in all planning activities, as appropriate for the area. In many ofthe smaller areas he must also provide a substantial amount of technical exper­tise and guidance in transportaiton planning.

Specifically, some of the functions that the district planner performs are:

o Provides liaison between the Planning Division/FHWA and the MPO.

o Relays, interprets and generally monitors compliance with all state andfederal rules and regulations at the local level.

o Provides technical consultation and assistance to local planning agencies.

o Monitors and assists local agencies in meeting administrative and planningrequirements.

o Suggests state and federal administrative policy modifications from a localperspective.

o Provides all information necessary for the preparation of the highways ele­ment of the Transportation Improvement Program.

13

V. COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT METROPOLITAN PLANNINGORGANIZATIONS: POLICY AND COMPOSITION

Comparison with other State's Policies

No detailed or comprehensive comparison has been documented reflecting otherstates' policies or experiences, pertaining to Metropolitan PlanningOrgftnizations or transportation planning. Due to the generality of the languageof the law and regulations there are no doubt many variations which were deemedappropriate for different states.

It is known that many states do not contribute to the local match for federalfunds through in kind services. Nor do all of the states provide the same tech­nological or educational support that Texas does.

In addition, there are numerous practices pertaining to the type of agencydesignated as the MPO administrative and technical staff. Indeed, there aremany variations in this regard, reflected in comparison of the 25 MPO's inTexas.

Comparisons of Metropolitan Planning Organizations in Texas

The basic requirements relative to the composition and function of MetropolitanPlanning Organizations has been discussed previously in this paper. The speci­fic composition of the organizations and methodology for executing these func­tions varies greatly from one area to the other, throughout the state.

These differences result from several valid considerations including:geographic and attitudinal differences, size and jurisdictional makeup of thearea, political and interjurisdictional factors, and levels of technical exper­tise locally available. While the diversity of organizations makes comparativeanalyses of performance difficult to quantify, experience has proven that theseagencies have, generally, achieved very good transportation programs, reflectiveof the local areas goals, objectives and needs.

Differences in agencies (or committees) designated as MPO's and committee com­position are reflected in Appendix IV (Committee Memberships). A summary of thedistribution of funding and responsibility for technical execution of planningactivities is as follows:

14

Figure P-5

TEXAS METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS

Area

AbileneAmarilloAustinBeaumont (JORTS)BrownsvilleBryan-College StationCorpus Chri stiDallas-Fort WorthE1 PasoHarlingen-San BenitoHouston-GalvestonKilleen-TempleLaredoLongviewLubbockMcA11 en-Edi nburgMidland-Odessa

San AngeloSan Antonio8Sherman-DenisonTexarkanaTylerVi ctori aWacoWi chita Fall s

Fund Recipient &Distribution

Central CityCentral CityCounty-Staff &Pass ThroughCOG-Pass Through to Major CitiesCentral CityIndividual Agencies8Central CityCOGCentral CityCentral City (Harlingen)COG, Limited Pass ThroughCOG, Limited Pass ThroughCentral CityCentral CityCentral CityIndividual Cities8COG

Central CityCounty (Committee)COGCOGCentral CityCentral CityCentral CityCentral City

15

Techni ca1Staff Services?

Ci ty, Consul tantCi ty, Consul tantStaff, CityCities, ConsultantCity, ConsultantCities, ConsultantCityCOGCityCity, ConsultantsCOG, Cities, 50,000+Cities, ConsultantsCity, ConsultantsCity, ConsultantsCity, ConsultantsCities, ConsultantsCOG, Cities,

ConsultantsCity, ConsultantsStaff, City, CountyCOG, ConsultantsSDHPT, COGCity, ConsultantsCityCityCity, Consultants

1 Mi nute Order 66719.

2 Mi nute Order 76787.

3 Minute Order 85191.

4 See Appendix II.

5 See Appendix III.

6 See Appendix II I, pg. 4.

7 SDHPT provides substantial local input into technical processes of all urbanplanning programs. There is substantially greater involvement in t~Bryan­

College Station, McAllen-Edinburg, and Texarkana studies due to the politicaljurisdictionial composition of the areas.

8 These areas have multiple contracts between SDHPT and individual cities orpUblic entities. SDHPT district staff functions as overall coordinating andadministrative agency.

D-10P, 5-18-90

16

APPENDIX A

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ACRONYMS

Appendix A

Transportation Planning Acronyms

Section 13 FAA airport systems planning grants

Section 16 (b) UMTA capital grants for transportation for elderly and handicappedpersons

Section 3 UMTA capital improvement grant

Section 5 Section of the DOT Act authorizing financial assistance for staterail planning

Section 5 UMTA grant for capital improvements and operating subsidies

Section 8 (d) UMTA technical studies grant for planning purposes; formerly UMTASection 9

Civil Aeronautics Board

Citizens Advisory Committee on Air Quality

Central Business District

Average Daily Traffic

Air Quality Control Regions

Air Quality Maintenance Area - Areas noted by EPA that have apotential for or that presently exceed the National Ambient AirQuality Standards

Clean Air Act (and its related amendments)

EPA grant for air quality maintenance planning responsibilities

FHWA demo funds for rural and small urban transit

Section of the Federal-Aid Highway Act on transportation planningin urbanized areas

FHWA grants for public transportation in nonurbanized areas

EPA air quality planning grants for the support of air pollutionplanning and control programs

A section of the Federal-Aid Highway Act which apportions planningfunds to Metropolitan Planning Organizations

CAA

CAB

CAC

CBD

Section 18

Section 105

Section 112

Section 134

Section 147

Section 175

ADT

AQCR's

AQMA

NAAQS

NASP

NO x

03

0&0

OPD

PPM

PRT

RFP

R-O-W

SDHPT

TCP

rep

TIP

TSM

TOPICS

TPC

TRC

TTl

UMTA

USC

UTPS

UWP

VMT

VOC

4R Act

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

National Airport System Plan

Nitrogen Oxides

Ozone

Origin and Destination

Overall Program Design - a budgetary document of H-GAC

Parts Per Million

Personal Rapid Transit

Request for Proposal or Reasonable Further Progress

Right-of-Way

State Department of Highways and Public Transportation

Transportation Control Plans - as envisioned by the EPA to reducemobile source emissions enough by 1982 or 1987 to meet the NAAQS(National Ambient Air Quality Standards)

Transit Development Program

Transportation Improvement Program

Transportation Systems Management

Traffic Operations to Increase Capacity and Safety

Transportation Planning Committee for Multimodal TransportationPlanning

Texas Railroad Commission

Texas Transportation Institute, a division of Texas A&M University

Urban Mass Transportation Administration

United States Code

Urban Transportation Planning System - a package of computerprograms for transit planning

Unified Work Program

Vehicle Miles Traveled

Volatile Organic Compound

Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976

APPENDIX B

RULES

Thursday June 30, 1983

Part VI

Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Urban Mass Transportation Administration

Urban Transportation Planning; Final Rule

Federal Registtlr I Vo);48, No. 127 I ThurBday, June 3D, 1983 I Rules and Regulations30332

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

Urban Mass TransportationAdministration

23 CFR Part 450

49 CFR Part 613

Urban Transportation Planning

AGENCY: Federal HighwayAdministration (FHWA) and UrbanMass Transportation Administration(UMTA), DOT.ACTION: Final rule.

--------SUMMARY: The purpose of this documentis to issue amendments to existingregulations governing transportationplanning under FHWA and UMTA grantprograms. These amendments areintended to: (1) Increase flexibility at theState and local level; (2) reduce redtapeand simplify administration of theplanning process; and (3) shift certainresponsibilities from the Federal to theState and local level while maintainingan appropriate Federal oversight role.DATES: These final amendments areeffective on August 1, 1983. Foradditional information, see"SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION".

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:FHWA: Sam W. P. Rea, Jr., UrbanPlanning and TransportationManagement Division, (202) 42&-2961, orJerry Boone, Office of the Chief Counsel.(202) 426-0761; or UMTA: RobertKirkland, Office of Planning Assistance.(202) 42&-2360, or Anthony Anderson,Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 42&­4011. all located at 400 Seventh Street,SW., Washington, D.C. 20590. FHWAoffice hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15p.m. ET. Monday through Friday; UMTAoffice hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00p.m. ET, Monday through Friday.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Thisdocument amends the FHWA/UMTAregulations for urban transportationplanning (23 CFR Part 450 and 49 CFRPart 613). The provisions of 23 CFR Part450, Subparts A and B are incorporatedinto 49 CFR Part 613.

Effective Dates

These final amendments are effectiveon August 1, 1983. This final rule allowsfor several simplified procedures to beinstituted at the option of State and/orlocal officials. As such, implementationschedules are not prescribed. However,FHWA and UMTA should be advised assoon as possible of any proceduralchanges instituted by Stale and localofficials. Section 450.1]4 institutes a

required State/metropolitan planningorganization certification. Thiscr,rtification must accumpany alltransportation improvement programs/annual (or biennial) elements submittedto FHWA and UMTA after the effectivedate of this rule. Any difficulties inmeeting this requirement should bebrought to FHWA and UMTA'sattention for resolution on a case-by­case basis.

OMB Control Numbers: 2132-0031 and21:}2~529.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collectionrequirements contained in thisregulation (sections 450.108 and 450.110)have been approved by the Office ofManagement and Budget under theprovisions of the Paperwork ReductionAct of 1980 (Pub. L. 9&-511) and havebeen assigned OMB control numbers2132-0031 and 2132~529.

Background

On September 17, 1975, FHWA andUMTA jointly issued final regulations(40 FR 42976) implementing the urbantransportation planning processmandated by the Federal-Aid HighwayActs and the Urban MassTransportation Act of 1964 (UMT Act),as amended. The statutes require B

continuing, comprehensive andcooperative (3C) transportation planningprocess in all urban areas of more than50,000 population.

Proposed amendments to the urbantransportation planning regulationswere published for notice and commenton October 30,1980 (45 FR 71990). Finalamendments and a request foradditional public comments werepublished on January 19,1981 (46 FR5702). These amendments wereoriginally scheduled to take effect onFebruary 18, 1981. On February 4, 1981.the DOT postponed the effective dateuntil March 31, 1981 (46 FR 10706). Thisaction was taken pursuant to thePresident's memorandum of January 29,1981, which, among other things,directed executive agencies to postponefor 60 days the effective dates ofregulations which had been issued butwere scheduled to become effectiveduring the 50-day period followingissuance of the memorandum. As aresult of their initial review of thepostponed amendments. the FHWA andUMTA decided to postpone the effectivedate further in order to providesufficient time for fulI and appropriatereview and revision of the subjectamendments (46 FR 19233, March 30.1981).

Based on their review of thepostponed amendments and the

comments submitted to the publicdocket, FHWA and UMTA decided towithdraw those amendments. In theirplace, interim final regulations wereissued on August 6, 1981 (46 FR 40170)which incorporated only thoseprovisions of the withdrawnamendments which: (1) Reduced redtapeand streamlined the planning processfor areas under 200,000 population; (2)incorporated recent legislative changes;and (3) clarified the purpose oftransportation system management(TSM) and several other aspects of theplanning process.

As part of FHWA and UMTA'scontinuing efforts to evaluate theirprograms, a comprehensive review ofthe urban transportation planningprocess was undertaken to determinewhat further changes should be made inthe process. This review considered theshift in Federal priorities away fromtransit operating assistance and ,towardsmaintaining existing highway andtransit systems, as well as thePresident's efforts to reduce Federalintrusion in areas of essentially Stateand local interest. Neither FHWA norUMTA has any preconceived positionson the issues under review. The onlyassumption used to guide the reviewwas that the Federal role would bereduced in areas of essentially State andlocal interest. The purpose of thecomprehensive review was to analyzethe various aspects of the transportationplanning process and to recommend anychanges which would improve theexisting delivery of transportationprograms to States and local areas wi~h

a minimum of Federal involvement.While this review had been a joint

FHWA/UMTA effort, it also had beenthe subject of extensive participation bynational interest groups and the public.Major national associations madesuggestions on issues to be addressed,and these suggestions were helpful inpreparing an "issues and options" paper,entitled, "Solicitation of PublicComment on the Appropriate FederalRole in Urban Transportation Planning,"A notice of availability and request forpublic comment was published in theFederal Register on December 17,1981(46 FR 61531), and an ofiicial docket wasestablished to receive comments(FHWA Docket 81-10). This paperserved as the vehicle to solicit publiccomment on specific issues as well as tosolicit recommendations on issues notaddressed in the paper.

The public comments on the "issuesand options" paper clearly indicatedthat the Federal role in the urbantransportation planning process neededreconsideration, especially in regard to

Federal Register I Vol. 48, No. 127 I Thurfluay, June 30, 1981 I Rules and Regulations 30333

the smaller urbanized areas (thoseurbanized areas with populations of lessthan 200,000). This general conclusionwas also reflected in the comments fromthe staffs of both FHWA and UMTA..Further, the experience of FHWA andUMTA in administering the urbantransportation planning programauthorized by the Federal-Aid Highwayand Urban Mass Transportation Acts,and the growing technical abilities of theStates and local agencies added supportto the position that administrative andregulatory revisions to the federallymandated urban transportation planningrequirements must be considered. Adetailed summary of the comments isincluded in the regulatory evaluation.

As a result of the comprehensivereview, FHWA and UMTA proposedamendments to the urban transportationplanning regulations in a notice ofproposed rulemaking (NPRM) publishedin the Federal Register on August 26,1982 (47 FR 37758).

The preamble to the NPRM discussedits overall policy direction under themajor subject areas'of the "issues andoptions" paper: Federal PlanningRequirement Threshold; Roles andResponsibilities; Planning and ProjectImplementation; TechnicalRequirements; Certification; and FederalFunding for the Planning Process. Thespecific proposals were discussed indetail under the heading, Section-by­Section Analysis, and are restated inthis preamble under the same heading.

This final rule is intended, as was theNPRM, to reduce the role of the FederalGovernment in urban transportationplanning to the maximum extentpossible under governing statutes. Thisis accomplished by: (lJ Providing forgreater State and local flexibility inadministering the planning process andassociated Federal funds; (2) clarifyingthe intent with respect to the flexibilityof institutional relationships; and (3)eliminating most of the non-regulatorylanguage from the regulation.

This regulation presents a furtherreduced Federal role, based on a clearerdistinction between Federalrequirements and good planningpractices. FHWA and UMTA intend tocontinue to provide technical assistanceto advance good planning andprogramming practices. Formalizedtraining courses, as well as on-site visitson an "as requested" basis, will beprovided along with other forms oftechnical assistance.

Disposition of CommentsIn response to the notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM), one hundred-fortyseven comments were receivedincluding 66 from metropolitan planning

organizations and regional planningagencies, 36 from State departments oftransportation, 9 from transit operatorsand authorities, 16 from State and localgovernments, 11 from Federal agencies,private citizens and other interestedparties, and 9 from nationalorganizations and groups whichrepresent groups such as State and localgovernments, transit operators, andmetropolitan planning organizations.

The majority of the comment werevery positive and supported the generalpurpose of the proposed revisions, thatis, to provide more flexibility to Stateand local officials and to streamline theplanning process. While manycomments supported the reduction inprescriptive provisions proposed in theNPRM, they believed that severalproposed provisions needed clarificationand further explanation. Severalcommenters criticized certain proposedrevisions and questioned the basis forthese actions.

In the preparation of the final rule setforth below, consideration was given tothe concerns mentioned earlier and allother commenters received insofar asthey relate to the scope of the NPRM.Comments received after October 25,1982, (close of comment period) alsowere considered to the extent that timeallowed. The majority of the changes arefor the purposes of clarification althoughseveral comments did result insubstantive alterations to theregulations. The Surface TransportationAssistance Act of 1982, Pub. L. 97-424,required some changes to the NPRM,due to the change to the capital andoperating assistance grant programsauthorized by amendments to the UrbanMass Transportation Act.

Section-by-Section Analysis

Each section of this final rule isdiscussed in detail below.

The existing Subpart B to 23 CFR Part450, "Metropolitan Planning Funds" (40FR 38151, August 27, 1975, as amendedat 46 FR 40176, August 8, 1981) is notaffected in any way by this rulemakingaction. However, the proposal presentedin the NPRM to redesignate this subpartas Subpart C is made final.

The existing appendices regardingtransportation system management andsimplified procedures in areas under200,000 population were deleted fromthe August 26, 1982 NPRM since they areadvisory. For that reason thoseappendices have also been deleted fromthis final rule. The FHWA and UMTAwill continue to provide advice andguidance on these issues, but intend todo so in a non-regulatory manner.

23 CFR 450 Subpart A-UrbanTransportation Planning

Section 450.100 Purpose.

This section states that this subpartimplements the urban transportationplanning requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134and Section 8 of the Urban MassTransportation Act of 1964, as amended.The section is unchanged from thatproposed in the NPRM.

Section 450.102 Applicability.

This section states that the provisionsof this subpart apply to thetransportation planning process inurbanized areas and is identical to thatin the NPRM.

Section 450.104 Definition.

Section 450.104 defines the terms usedin this part. As proposed. the definitionsof the terms, "Highway Safety," •"Interstate Substitution Projects" ana"Interstate System Projects," are nolonger included because these terms aredefined elsewhere in 23 CFR or are nolonger used in this regulation.

The term "Designated Section 9Recipient" is added to the final rule inrecognition of changes to UMTAprograms brought about by the SurfaceTransportation Assistance Act of 1982.

The proposal in the NPRM to allow fotan annual element to cover a period ofup to two years was widely accepted.However. several commentersrecommended that the term, "annualelement", be changed to reflect thisincreased flexibility. The FHWA andUMTA decided to use the term "annual(or biennial) element" in this rule andexpect State and local officials will useeither "annual element" or "biennialelement" depending upon the programperiod used. The definition is modifiedslightly to reflect this change.

As proposed in the NPRM, therevision to the definition of the"metropolitan planning organization" ismade final. This proposal made moregeneral the wording regardingmembership and is meant to be lessprescriptive. Also, the last sentenceunder the term, "metropolitan planningorganization," which recommends "thatprincipal elected officials of generalpurpose local government berepresented on the metropolitanplanning organization," is deleted sinceit duplicates paragraph (b) in Section450.106. Further discussion on theseother items directly affecting themetropolitan planning organization iscontained in the following section.

Federal Register I Vol. 48, No. 127 I Thursday, June 30. 1983 I Rules and Regulations- -30334

Section 450.106 Metropolitan planningorganization.

Section 450.106, which provides forthe designation of the metropolitanplanning organization. is not changedfrom that proposed in the NPRM. It isintended to follow closely 23 U.S.C.134(b)(2) and 49 U.S.C. 1607(b)(3) so thatthe intent of Congress with regard to thedesignation of metropolitan planningorganizations is explicitly recognized.

A number of the commentersexpressed concern that the importantrole of local elected officials was beingreduced. This concern was directed atproposed changes to this section as wellas sections 450.108 regarding funding,450.112 regarding participantresponsibilities, and 450.206 regardingproject selection. These specificconcerns are addressed in thediscussion in this preamble under eachof these sections.

The specific concerns expressedmolftly by commenters from localgovernments and regional planningagencies under Sections 450.106 and450.104 regard the deletion of therequirement that principal electedofficials of general purpose localgovernment have adequaterepresentation on the metropolitanplanning organization and that themetropolitan planning organization bedefined as, "a forum of cooperativetransportation decisionmaking byprincipal elected officials of generalpurpose local government." Several U.S.Senators also expressed this sameconcern.

The FHWA and UMTA stronglybelieve that local officials involvementin the aC planning process, through themetropolitan planning organization, isimportant. The changes proposed in theNPRM were not intended to reflect anychange in this belief. Rather, this rulewas changed to rely primarily upon thestatutory requirements with minimumadministrative interpretation to allowthe widest latitude possible in thedesignation of metropolitan planningorganizations. Therefore, the provisionsof 23 U.S.C. 134 and Section 8 of theUMT Act (49 U.S.C. 1607) areemphasized. These provisions call forthe designation of a metropolitanplanning organization to be to••• byagreement among the units of generalpurpose local government and theGovernor."

Local government involvement in thedesignation or redesignation of ametropolitan planning organizationconstitutes a substantial and importantrole for local officials in structUIing the3C process. The FHWA and UMTAstrongly believe that the metropolitan

planning organization should adequatelyrepresent locol elected officiulv and theimplementing agencies, but thatdecisions such liS who should serve onthe metropolitan planning organizationshould be made by local governmentsand not be mandated by the FederalGovernment. This representation wouldbe determined at the time of designationor redesignation and does not prohibitappointed officials, such asrepresentatives of the Stote DOT orlocal public transit operators, from beingvoting members of the metropolitanplanning organization.

As stated in the NPRM, FHWA andUMTA do not anticipate significantorganizational or functional changesbeing made to existing arrangements asa result of these amendments, whichreduce Federal prescription on whatresponsibilities the organizations orpartners in the process must assume aslong as there is mutual agreement.

Section 450.108 Urban transportationplanning process: Funding.

This new section incorporates variousprovisions of several sections of theexisting regulation and provides theprogram requirements for the use ofFHWA and UMTA planning funds tocarry out the urban transportationplanning process.

The UMTA has decided to retain theprovision proposed in the NPRM givingStates the option of receiving andallocating its Section 8 funds for thoseurbanized areas below the 200,000population threshold. In response to theconcerns of several commentersregarding funding of those smallurbanized areas where they are part oflarger metropolitan planningorganizations, the final regulation hasbeen changed to recognize that groupsof urbanized areas under a singlemetropolitan planning organization withan aggregate population of 200.000 ormore should continue to receive fundsthrough the metropolitan planningorganization. In addition. many of thesmaller urbanized areas were concernedthat the draft rule would allow States toopt unilaterally to retain Section 8 fundsand spend them for the benefit of thesmall urbanized areas, rather thanpassing them through for the direct useby those metropolitan planningorganizations. Although States wouldnot be precluded from spending thesefunds for the benefit of the smallurbanized areas, it could only be donewith the concurrence of the designatedmetropolitan planning organization. Thefinal rule has been changed to clarifythis point. The UMTA intends that theStates allocate the Section 8 fundsamong small urbanized areas annually

in collaboration with the metrofolitanplanning organizations in lieu of it beingdone at the Federal level by UMTA, butthere is no intent that the States co-optthe program in these 8reas. Thisprovision creates a potential forallocation of combined FHWA andUMTA planning funds which is moresensitive to local needs by building onthe States current allocation of FHWAplanning funds based on a formulaapproved by FHWA, The FHWA andUMTA also encourage State and localofficials to work together to ensureconsistent and timely delivery of funds.The FHWA amd UMTA are workingtogether to ensure the same at theFederal level.

The reference to 23 U.S.C. 104(f)(3) isincluded in this regulation as it was inthe proposed rule to ensure that theintent of Congress is followed in regardto the administration of PL funds. Thissection does not prohibit theadministration and/or expenditure of PLfunds by another organization asallowed under § 450.108(e) 80 long asagreed to by the metropolitan planningorganization. The FHWA stronglyencourages such latitude be used.especially in the smaller urbanizedareas.

In an effort to reduce the Federalpresence in the administration of theplanning process in urbanized areaswith less than 200,000 population, theFHWA and UMTA proposed in theNPRM that a unified planning workprogram (UPWP) need not be developedfor these areas; rather, planning tasksfor these areas would be documented asagreed to by the State and themetropolitan planning organization. Thisprovision was welcomed by mostcommenters who addressed the issueand has been retained in the final rule.The FHWA and UMTA believe that it isappropriate to provide State and localofficials with the flexibility to determinethe planning activities that are to bedone, who would do the work. and howthe funds would be expended withoutspecifying how this information illdocumented.

In order to strengthen UMTA's longstanding advocacy of appropriate transitoperator involvement in the planningprocess. § 450.108(f) of the NPRM wasreplaced by § 450.108(e) in this final ruleto specifically address and encouragefund pass through and the sharing ofappropriate work responsibilities by themetropolitan planning organization andtransit operators. The FHWA continuesto allow pass through of PL funds toother agencies but emphasizes that, inall urbanized areas, the metropolitanplanning organization must agree to the

Federal Register I Vol. 48, No. 127 I Thursday, June 30, 1981 I Rules and Regulations-use of PL funds made available to themetropolitan planning organization bythe State in accordance with 23 U.S.C.104(f)(3) and 23 CFR 450.108(a).

Finally, § 450.108 has been modified toreflect provisions of Section 9(j) of TitleIII of the Surface TransportationAssistance Act of 1982 which providesfor the expenditure of Section 9 or 9Agrant funds for planning purposes. ThisAct was passed after the NPRM waspublished. To assure that planningconducted with Section 9 or 9A funds bydesignated recipient is fully coordinatedwith, and a part of the 3C process,§ 450.108(c) has been modified to requirethat Section 9 or 9A funded planningactivities be included in the UPWP forareas of over 200,000 population andthat the designated recipient be includedin the work program developmentprocess. Similarly, § 450.108(d) has beenmodified to require that Section 9 or 9Afunds used for planning purposes beincluded in the description of activitiesfor areas of less than 200,000 population.

Section 450.110 Urban transportationplanning process.' Products.

Section 450.110 is identical to thatproposed in the NPRM except thatparagraph (a) has been changed slightlyto be more consistent with statutorylanguage.

As proposed in the NPRM. this sectioncombined and simplified severalsections of the existing regulation. TheFHWA and UMTA are reducing theproduct requirements to the minimumnecessary to permit Federalstewardship: (1) A transportation plan(without the requirement for long- andshort-range elements), and (2) the TIPand its annual (or biennial) element.Consequently, State and local officialswill have maximum flexibility indeveloping and endorsing theseproducts. A planning work program willcontinue to be required under section450.108 to support the request for PL andSection 8 funds needed to perform theseactivities and prepare these products.

Several commenters were concernedby the lack of guidance presented in thissection, especially with regard to thetransportation plan. The FHWA andUMTA continue to believe that many ofthe existing provisions are advisory and.therefore, have been removed from theregulation.

Several commenters were concernedwith the issue of the geographic scope ofplanning, which was not specificallyaddressed in the NPRM. The existingregulations require the planning processto cover. "as a minimum. the urbanizedarea and the area likely to be urbanizedin the period covered by the long-rangeelement of the transportation plan." 23

U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 1607 requirethat area which lies within theurbanized area boundary (as defined bythe Bureau of the Census) is theminillium geographic area to be coveredby the 3C process. The statutoryrequirement is reflected in § 450.100."Purpose," and section 450.102,"Applicability," of this final rule.Defining a geographic area larger thanthis minimum is permitted. It should bedetermined by State and local officialsand consider such factors as the areaswhich will be urbanized in theforeseeable future. representation on ametropolitan planning organization,jurisdictional boundaries. as well as thecurrent and future transportation systemand transportation issues in the area.The FHWA and UMTA do not intend toprescribe the outer boundaries of theurban transportation planning area butexpect that State and local officials willestablish appropriate geographicboundaries for the urban transportationplanning process.

Several commenters also wereconcerned that FHWA and UMTA. byeliminating specific requirements forlong- and short-range elements of theplan were de-emphasizing an orderlyflow of the planning and projectdevelopment process from generalsystems analysis through analysis ofalternatives to project selection andimplementation. This is not the case.Several commenters also believed thatthe "regional" nature of the planningprocess would be lost without a Federalrequirement for a long-range element.The FHWA and UMTA believe theplanning process has matured to theextent that neither time hprizons norspecific plan elements have to bespecified in Federal regulations andanticipate that without this specificity,the transportation plan will be moreresponsive to each area's situation, andresult. therefore, in more useful productsof the planning process.

Paragraph (c) has been retained inthis final rule to indicate that theplanning process may also include otherplanning and project developmentactivities, as determined by State andlocal officials, in addition to thoseindicated in paragraphs (a) and (b). TheFHWA and UMTA believe that whilethe 3C process is mandated by Federallaw its objective is to insure thatimportant State and local transportationissues are adequately addressed.

Section 450.112 Urban transportationplanning process: Participantresponsibilities.

This section is retained as proposed inthe NPRM. It provides for themetropolitan planning organization, the

30335

State and publicly owned operators ofmass transportation services to mutuallydetermine their roles andresponsibilities for developing theproducts of the urban transportationplanning process. This change gives theprincipal participants greater flexibilityin determining their appropriate rolesand is intended to eliminate theperception that there are regulatoryrestrictions regarding the involvement ofimplementing agencies in the urbantransportation planning process. Thischange also eliminates the existingrequirement for an annual endorsementof the trransportation plan and TIP!annual (or biennial) element. Since thesemay not change significantly from yearto year. an annual endorsement may bean unnecessary burden. Endorsement ofthe transportation plan will only benecessary when significant changesoccur and endorsement of the TIP!annual (or biennial) element will berequired when a new or revised TIP!annual (or biennial) element issubmitted to FHWA and UMTA. TheFHWA and UMTA encourage the use ofsimplified procedures for revising theannual (or biennial) element.

The Federal requirements prescribedby section 450.108 of the existingregulation for agreements between themetropolitan planning organization,State, and transit operators. asnecessary. are eliminated since theserequirements are an unnecessaryFederal intrusion.

While most of the commenterssupported the increased flexibilityafforded State and local officials, anumber of commenters believed thatwithout a federally prescribed "leadagency" or explicit Federal support for aparticular assignment of responsibilities,major disagreements among the partiescould result in a stalemate. As statedearlier. this regulation provides Stateand local officials with increasedflexibility to carry out the 3C processwith a minimum Federal role. inherentwith this increased flexibility is theresponsibility to reconcile theirdifferences.

bection 450.114 Urban transportationprocess: Certification.

In keeping with the goal of reducingthe Federal presence in urbantransportation planning. FHWA andUMTA proposed in the NPRM that thecurrent procedures for Federalcertification of the planning process beeliminated and that the State and theMetropolitan planning organizationcertify that the planning processcomplies with all applicable Federallaws and reguhtions. This section of the

30336 Federal RegistHr / Vo!. 48. No. 127 / Thursuay, June 30. 19f13 / Rules and Regulations..._~~~---.--.----------.-_.--.-.---.~~"'!.-._ .._-.----_.-._--------------.----.-.........;.-----------------...........-NPRM also required that the planningprocess be consistent with othl)r Federallllws lind that the process includeactivities to support the developmentand implementation of the TIP,tranRportation plan and subsequentproject development activities asnecessary and to the degree appropriate.

The existing section concerningcertificati:m [§ 450.212) and elements(§ 450.120) are combine as proposed inthe NPRM to clarify what the State/metropolitan planning organizationcertification action should address.Furthp.rmore, the list of tp.chnicalactivities included in the existingregulation was considered to beadvisory and, therefore, was deletedfrom the NPRM. For that same reason.the list is not included in this finlll rule.

The commenters were very supportiveof this State/metropolitan planningorganization certification as proposed.Therefore, FHWA and UMTA decidedto retain this provision as proposed.except for the changes noted below.

Several commenters recommendedthat the certification action be based oncriteria established by FHWA andUMTA. FHWA and UMTA believe thatthis final rule in fact contains thecriteria and do not intend to provide amore explicit interpretation except asincluded in this preamble. To do sowould detract from the responsibility ofState and local officials to assess theadequacy of the urban transportationplanning process. FHWA and UMTAbelieve that this final rule providesadequate interpretation of theapplicable statutes.

Paragraph (a) has been revised toemphasize that the urban transportetionplanning process must also includeactivities to support the implementationas well as the development of thetransportation plan and TIP.

Paragraph (b) of the NPRM regardingthe State/metropolitan planningorganization certification provision hasbeen revised in the final rule.Subparagraph (b)(4) of the NPRM hasbeen deleted since the statutoryrequirements it references (23 U.S.C.lOO(h), 49 U.S.C. 1604(h)(2), and 49U.S.C. 1610, regarding social. economicand environmental impacts) addressareas already covered by 23 U.S.C. 134and 49 U.S.C. 1607 and are project levelrequirements. Also, the references to 49U.S.C. 1602(d) and 1610(1)) in paragraph(c) are deleted for the same reasons.

Subparagraph (b)(4) regrading theelderly and handicapped provision isnot subject to the State/metropolitanplanning organization certification asproposed in the NPRM, since 49 CFRPart 27, the regulation implementing this

requi,erTl'~nt. already rcquires a separatecertification action.

A new subparagraph [b)[3) is adden toreflect changes Goncerning minoritybusiness enterprises brought about bythe Surface Transportation. Assistancp.Act of HJ82 Pub. 1. 97-424, Section105(f)). The planning process shouldtake into account the need to complywith the requirements of Section 105(f)regarding involvement of minoritybusinp.ss enterprises in FHWA andUMTA funded. projects.

The two requirements addressed bythe State/metropolitan planningorganization certification action are:

The urban transportation planningprocess requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134and 49 U.S.C. 1607 and requirements ofthis final rule; and

The transportation planning andprogramming-related requirementscontained in Sections 174 and 176 (c)and (d) of the Clean Air Act.Implementing regulations are containedin 23 CPR Part 770 and 49 CPR Part 623.

The urban transportation planningprocess requirements are included toprovide the State and local officialsincreased responsibility in carrying outthe urban transportation planningprocess. This certification action isintended to provide a focal point for theState/metropolitan planningorganization assessment of the planningprocess. The Clean Air Act requirementsBre included because of the relationshipbetween urban transportation planningand transportation related air qualityplanning as presently identified in theClean Air Act, as amended.

Several commenters questioned thedifferences between these tworequirements and the two requirementsincluded in section 450.114(c) and (d) ofthe NPRM regarding private enterpriseand civil rights. These commenters wereconcerned that FHWA and UMTA weregiving greater emphasis to these tworequirements because they werespecifically cited outside of the self­certification provisions. This was theintent; FHWA and UMTA continue tobelieve that these two statutoryprovisions require additional Federalattention outside of the State/metropolitan planning organizationcertification procedures.

This certification action is intended tobe a simple statement that therequirements of 23 CFR Part 450 havebeen met (i.e., "We certify that therequirements of 23 CFR 450.114(c) aremet.") A more elaborate submittal (i.e.,with supporting documentation) isacceptable but not required by FHWAor UMTA. Since the certification actionis to reflect the current planning process,it is to be submitter! to FHW A and

UMTA at the time a new TIP. includingthe HnnuiJl (or biennial) element. iss\Jumitted to the Federal Government,but no less frequently than 4 years. Thisrequirement is not intended to mandatewhen the actual certification action is totake place. However. FHWA and UMTAexpect that development andpreparation of the TIP, including theannual (or biennial) element beingsubmitted, is based on a currentlycertified process and that. at aminimum, a statement to this effectshould accompany the TIP. The FHWAand UMTA want to stress that thecertification procedures should bedetermined by the State andmetropolitan planning organization.FHWA and UMTA encourage a jointsingle action, although it is not required.

Institution of the State/metropolitanplanning organization self certificationdoes not relieve FHWA and UMTA oftheir oversight responsibilities and thenecessity of making statutory findingsdiscussed under § 450.212 "ProgramApproval." The FHWA and UMTA willstill conduct appropriate. independentreviews as a basis for these findings.The State/metropolitan planningorganization self certification, and thesereviews will assist FHWA and UMTA inmeeting their statutory responsibilities.

The State/metropolitan planningorganization certification is not anoptional requirement. Therefore. someaction must be taken in order for FHWAand UMTA to make subsequent programand project approvals under § 450.212.However. failure of either party tocertify full compliance does not, byitself. necessarily trigger a negativefinding by either FHWA or UMTA. Insuch cases FHWA and UMTA intend todiscuss the situation with the partiesinvolved to determine the cause of theiraction as well as possible remedies.Other factors which also form the basisfor the Federal finding. such as aproperly developed and endorsed TIP, aplan and work program, will also beconsidered during these discussions.

Deficiencies in the process identifiedby State and local officials are to becorrected according to their ownproposals. within a reasonable self­imposed time frame.

23 CFR 450 Subpart B-TransportationImprovement Program

Section 450.200 Purpose.

This section is retained a8 proposed inthe NPRM. The NPRM proposal differedfrom the existing regulation by droppingthe language. "and to prescribeguidelines for the selection byimplementing agencies of Rnnual

Federal Register I Vol. 48, No. 127 I Thursday, June 30. 1981 I Rules and Regulations 30331

programs of projects to be advanced inurbanized areas." This language is nolonger necessary since the prescriptiveprovisions included in the existingregulation regarding project initiationare eliminated (see section 450.208).

Section 450.202 Applicability.

Section 450.202 states the types ofprojects to which this-rule applies. Theprojects are categorized by the variousFederal funding programs. Projectsunder the Highway Bridge Replacementand Rehabilitation (HERR) Program (23U.S.C. 144), and the Sections 9 and 9Atransit program created by the SurfaceTransportation Assistance Act of 1982(49 U.S.C. 1607a and 1607a-l) have beenadded to those that were listed in theNPRM. Although the Interstate 4Rprogram was technically included in theexisting regulation. under the generalcitation for the Interstate System (23U.S.C. 104(bJ(5». there was someconfusion because it was not explicitlyidentified in the NPRM. This has beenclarified by including the specificreference to the Interstate 4R program inthis section.

The FHWA believes the HBRRprogram should be subject to the urbantransportation planning process becausemajor bridge reconstruction projects inurbanized areas may have potentialregional impact and intergovennentalinterest. While the FHWA believes thatthese types of bridge projects are beingincluded in the TIP process because theymost likely are located on a roadwaydesignated as part of a Federal-aidsystem. the direct citation of theprogram in this section should make itclear thet the regulation does apply.Many areas already include thoseclasses of projects in their TIP andannual element.

The Section 9 program (and theSection 9A program through fiscal year1983) are also added. These programsare subject to the urban transportationplanning process by virtue of the self­certification requirement contained insection 9(e)(3)(G) of the UMf Act.Information regarding the Section 9Aprogram was published by UMTA in theJanuary 24, 1983. Federal Register. (48FR 3300) and in UMfA Circular G­9020.1 of February 3. 1983. Infonnationregarding the Section 9 program will bepublished in the Federal Register priorto October 1. 1983.

Several comrnenters questioned theneed to retain the provision that projects"serving" (as opposed to "in") urbanizedareas be included. The FHWA andUMTA believe that many transportationimprovements are constructed orinstituted for the sole purpose of servingthe needs of a specific urbanized area.

Transit routes. carpool and vanpoollanes, and park-and-ride lots, are a fewexamples of the types which would beoutside of an urbanized area'sboundaries but whose primary purposeis to serve the transportation needs ofthe urbanized areas.

Paragraph (b) has been changed toallow the State, upon agreeemnt inwriting with the metropolitan planningorganization, to propose Federal-aidprimary, Interstate (including 4R) andHERR projects (but not Federal-aidurban system projects. Interstatesubstitution projects or UMfA-fundedprojects) for implementation in thestatewide program of projects (105program). without these projects beingdrawn from the annual (or biennial)element of the TIP if they are repair,safety, or localized traffic operationprojects that do not alter the functionaltraffic capacity or capability of thefacilities being improved.

This revised paragraph expands theprovisions in the NPRM which coveredonly highway safety-related projectsthat are included in the State preparedhighway safety improvement programunder 23 CFR 924. The reference to thehighway safety improvement program iseliminated from this final rule sincesafety-related projects are now coveredby this optional provision.

The FHWA has decided to expand theprovision to include, in addition tohighway safety improvement projects.other projects which are not ofsignificant scale to warrant the samelevel of effort required for projects withgreater reginal impact. Quite often. theseimprovements evolve from the statewideor systemwide program to maintain andimprove the condition and safety ofexisting streets and highways. TheFHWA believes that these types ofprojects need not be on the TIP.including the annual (or biennial)element, to assure adequatetransportation planning andprogramming under 23 U.S.C. 134(a).This optional and flexible provisiondoes not exempt these types of projectsfrom being based on the 3C process andFHWA fully intends to continue toexercise its statutory authority under 23U.S.C. 134(a) which requires theSecretary to make such a finding.

The FHWA anticipates that thisoptional provision will be used primarilyto address categories of projects (asopposed to individual projects) and willbe excercised in concert with simplifiedprocedures to update the TIP and annual(or biennial) element under Section450.204(c) and the procedures to selectprojects for inclusion in the annual (orbiennial) element under 450.206(a)(4).

FHWA stresses that: (1) Thisprovision applies only to the certaintypes or categories of projects describedearlier and, (2) the State/metropolitanplanning organization agreement is akey requirement. Regarding the projecttypes, the State should make FHWAaware of the exclusion that the Stateintends to apply as early as possible.This early action is intended: (a) Toprovide FHWA with sufficient time toalert the State to any concerns FHWAmay have regarding the types of projects(or categories of projects) proposed tobe covered by this provision. and (b) topreclude the delay of the projects whenthe 105 program or an amendment to itis formally submitted to FHWA.

Regarding the agreement requirement.the State should clearly indicate how itwas accomplished (e.g.• copies of thecorrespondence). FHWA fully expectsthe agreement to be made sufficiently inadvance of the preparation of the annualstatewide program of projects under 23U.S.C. 105 or any proposed amendmentto an approved program of projects. Thisprovision allows for the agreement to beeffective for several years. however. theState's notification to both FHWA andthe metropolitan planning organizationis to be on the same cycle as 105program actions. and projects (orcategories of projects) should beidentified whenever possible in thesame detail that they will be describedin the 105 program of projects.

The existing requirement that theState notify the appropriatemetropolitan planning organization of105 program actions taken on projects(or categories of projects) in eachurbanized area is retained as§ 450.210(d).

Section 450.204 Transportationimprovement program: General.

This section is retained in identicalfonn as proposed in the NPRM.exceptthat paragraph (d)(2) is changed slightlyto indicate clearly that FHWA does nottake any approval action on the TIP.including the annual (or biennial)element but rather uses it as a basis formeeting the apphcable air qualityprocedures contained in 23 CFR Part 770and as a basis for the subsequent reviewand approval of the statewide programof projects under 23 U.S.C. 105. Asproposed in the NPRM, this sectionincorporated sections 450.314. "Annualelement modification," and 450.316."Action required by the metropolitanplanning organization."

Federal Register I Vol. 48, No. 127 I Thursday. June 30. 19B3 I Rules and l\.egulatioDsJ •

30338

Section 450.206 Annual {or biennial}element: Project selection.

The proposal to eliminate § 450.310."Annual element: Project initiation" andreplace it with § 450.206 has beenretained in this final rule. Severalcommenters opposed this proposal,believing that the authority for selectingFl'deral-aid urban system projectsmandated by 23 U.S.C. 105(d) was beingignored. The FHWA and the UMTA donot believe that this is the case. Section450.310 provided for an administrativelydetermined procedure for initiating allprojects, not just Federal-aid urbansystem projects, which FHWA andUMTA believe is too prescriptive andgoes beyond the statutory requirements.

Section 105(d) of 23 U.S.C. does notrefer to project initiation; it states inpertinent part that Federal-aid urbansystem projects. ". . • be selected bythe appropriate local officials with theconcurrence of the State highwaydepartment . . ."

The statutory requirement is explicitlyacknowledged in section 45O.206(a)(2).Also the statutory requirement regardingthe selection of Interstate substitutionprojects by responsible local officials.contained in 23 U.S.C. 103(e)(4) and 23CFR 476 is acknowledged in§ 450.206(a)(3). The FHWA and UMTAbelieve that the specific procedures tomeet these statutory provisions shouldbe decided by the local officials and notprescribed by the Federal Government.The FHWA andUMTA also believe thatendorsement of the annual (or biennial)element by the metropolitan planningorganization will be evidence that localofficials have in fact selected theFederal-aid urban system projects aswell as the Interstate substitutionprojects on the annual (or biennial)element. Paragraph (b) to § '150.206 hasbeen added to recognize this concern.

Section 450.208 Annual (or biennial)element: Content.

The only change to this section fromthat proposed in the NPRM is made toclarify paragraph (b)(l) that projectphases as well as complete projects maybe proposed in the annual (or biennial)element. The word "phase" replaces"stage" which appears in the existingregulation and the NPRM in order to usethe term which appears in 23 CFR Part630.

Several commenters suggested thateither the TIP or the annual element beeliminated. while others gave strongsupport to inclusion of both the TIP andthe annual element. The proposal in theNPRM to allow for an annual element tocover a period of up to two years waswidely accepted. These were similar

comments received on the "issues andoptions" paper. Based on thesecomments, FHWA and UMTA believethat the relationship between the l1Pand the annual (or biennial) element andtheir role in the project developmentprocess need to be clarified.

The annual (or biennial) element issimply the list of transportationimprovement projects proposed forimplementation during the first year (or2 years) of the program period of theTIP. Projects in the annual (or biennial)element are generally described ingreater detail than those in the TIP. Thisdescription is to be based on the factorsinduded in section 450.208(b) and isnecessary for subsequent Federalprogram approvals.

This TIP provides continuity between. the transportation planning process, thetransportation plan and the projectsincluded in the annual (or biennial)element. As such, the TIP provides aframework in which to place. inperspective. those projects which areproposed for implementation with thepolicies and strategies of the areadescribed in the transportation plan (notnecessarily discrete projects).

While longer range projectll andsubsequent phases of a project are to beincluded in the TIP. there is norequirement that those improvementsselected for inclusion in the annual (orbiennial) element must have appearedfirst in the out years of the TIP.However. as the schedule for a project(or improvement) in the TIP advances.its description should be refined to thelevel of detail needed to allow it to beincluded in the annual (or biennial)element.

Metropolitan planning organizationendorsement of the TIP (which includesthe annual (or biennial) element) is aprerequisite for subsequent FHWA andUMfA approvals of the programs ofprojects. In addition. the metropolitanplanning organization endorsement ofthe annual (or biennial) elementconstitutes the selection of projects bylocal officials pursuant to 23 U.S.C.105(d) and 103(e)(4). One endorsementaction satisfies both requirements.

Section 450.210 Selection ofprojectsfor implementation.

The only substantive changes made tothis section relate to the addition of theHBRR projects to the applicabilitysection. (450.202(a)(6)) and optionalexclusion allowed under §450.202(b).Both of these are discussed in detail inthis preamble under § 450.20Z.

The NPRM proposed that an alreadyexisting exemption which currentlyapplies to Interstate and primaryprojects be extended to apply to

Federal-aid urban system projects. Thisproposal has been made final. Thisprovision permits proposed urbansystem projects, for which substantialcommitment of Federal funding has beenmade, to be included in the statcwiseprogram of projects under 23 U.S.C. 105without having been in the currentannual (or biennial) element. Theseprojects may be included in the 105program only if (1) they have alreadyreceived Federal approval for right-of­way acquisition or federal approval ofphysical construction or implementationwhere right-of-way acquisition was notpreviously federally funded and (Z)previous phases of such project orprojects were included in an annual (orbiennial) element endorsed by themetropolitan planning organization. Thisprovision does not affect those urbansystem projects which, as of theeffective date of this final rule, havealready received Federal authorizationto acquire right-of-way or Federalapproval of physical construction orimplementation where right-of-wayacquisition was not previously federallyfunded.

This provision is based on therationale behind the existing regulatoryprovision that the commitment ofsubstantial resources for a project whichhas advanced through the planningprocess to later phases of developmentshould be considered. in effect.committed to that project from aplanning standpoint This concept hasbeen extended to similar urban systemprojects.

Several commenters objected to thisproposal on the grounds that theybelieved it makes the priority settingprocess of the metropolitan planningorganization meaningless and thwartsthe planning of when and if projects willadvance. The FHWA and UMTA do notshare this view since these projectsmust be included in a metropolitanplanning organization endorsed annual(or biennial) element and receiveFederal approval either for right-of-wayacquisition, construction orimplementation prior to reaching suchan advanced stage of development.

It should be noted that this exemptionis not intended to~ircumvent the role oflocal officials in the urbantransportation planning process,especially with respect to the selectionof Federal-aid urban system projects. Ifthis exemption is used.§450.210(b)(3)(iii) requires that the statemust submit a statement with the 105program of projects which includes foreach applicable project or group ofprojects the views of the metropolitanplanning organization and indicates how

Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 127 / Thursday. June 3D, 1981 / Rules and Regulations 30339

the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134(0)have been met. In addition. §450.210(d)requires the State to notify themetropolitan planning organization ofthe disposition of the projects on theannual (or biennial) element as well asthoge projects included on the 105program of projects under either thisexemption or the optional provisionprovided under §450.202(b).

Paragraph (c) of this section has beenchanged from the NPRM to specificallyacknowledge that the agreementbetween the State and metropolitanplanning organization under §450.202(b)will satisfy the requirement that theprojects or categories of projectsaffected by the agreement are based onthe 3C process.

Section 450.212 Program approval.

Two changes are made to this sectionfrom that proposed in the NPRM. Thefirst change is the addition of the clause"and Interstate subtitution projects" toparagraph (a). This is done toacknowledge that these projects are notidentified on the statewide program ofprojects prepared pursuant to 23 U.S.C.105 but are to be based on the planningprocess. This omission was identified byseveral commenters.

The second change is the addition ofHERR projects to the FHWA approvalunder paragraph (a)(4).

Several commenters pointed out that areference to FHWA's air quality-relatedrcsponsibilities under 23 CFR Part 770."Air Quality Conformity and PriorityProcedurcs for use in Federal-AidHighway and Federally Funded TransitPrograms" was not included in thissection. FHWA decided that a referenceto 23 CFR Part 770 is more appropriate§450.204(d)(2). As was stated in theearlier explanation of § 450.204, FHWAreviews the TIP when it is submitted.but does not take any approval action.

Other Considerations

The NPRM indicated that FHWA andUMTA were evaluating the merits ofhaving certification acceptance (23 CFRPart 640) apply to the 3C planningprocess and requested commentsaccordingly. Based on the commentsreceived FHWA and UMTA havedecided not to take any action at thistime to include the 3C process under thecertification acceptance provisions.

Administrative Matters

These amendments are considered tobe significant under the regulatorypolicies and procedures of theDepartment of Transportation becausethey involve important departmentalpolicy. A regulatory evaluation has beenprepllred and is availilble for inspection

in the rulcmaking docket (No. 82-10.Room 4205). Copies of the regulatoryevaluation may be obtained bycontacting Mr. Sam W. P. Rea. Jr., at theaddress provided above under theheading "For Further InformationContact." The FHWA and UMTA havedetermined that this final rule does notconstitute a major rule under the criteriaof Executive Order 12291. Theseamendments reduce burdens imposedon State and local governments in theconduct of urban transportationplanning and will not have a significanteconomic impact. Accordingly. underthe 'criteria of the Regulatory FlexibilityAct, it is certified ihat theseamendments will not.have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 450 and49 CFR Part 613

Grant programs-transportation,Highways and roads, Masstransportation. Urban transportationplanning.

In consideration of the foregoing. theFHWA and UMTA hereby !imendChapter I of Title 23. Code of FederalRegulations, and Chapter VI of Title 49.Code of Federal Regulations, as set forthbelow:

1. Part 450. Subpart A of;..J CFR isrevised to read as follows:

PART 4So-PLANNING ASSISTANCEAND STANDARDS

Subpart A-Urban Transportation Planning

Sec.450.100 Purpose.430.102 Applicability.450.104 Definitions.450.106 Metropolitan planning organization.450.108 Urban transportation planning

process: Funding.450.110 Urban transportation planning

process: Products.450.112 Urban transportation planning

process: Participant responsibilities.450.114 Urban transportation planning

process: Certification.Authority: 23 U.S.C. 104(f)(3). 134 and 315;

Secs. 3. 5. 8, 9. and 9A of the Urban MassTransportation Act of 1964, as amended (49U.S.C. 1602. 1604. 1607, 1607a. and 1607a-1):Secs. 174 and 176 of the Clean Air Act (42U.S.C. 7504 and 7506); and 49 CFR 1.48(b)·and1.51.

Subpart A-Urban TransportationPlanning

§ 450.100 Purpose.The purpose of this subpart is to

implement 23 U.S.C. 134, and Section 8of the Urban Mass Transportation Actof 1904, as amended (UMT Act) (49U.S.C. 1607). which require that eachurbanized area. as a condition to,the

receipt of Federal capital or operatingassistance, have a continuing.cooperative. and comprehensivetransportation planning process thatresults in plans and programs consistentwith the comprehensively planneddevelopment of the urbanized area.These plans and programs supporttransportation improvements andsubsequent project developmentactivities in the area.

§ 450.102 Applicability.

The provisions of this subpart areapplicable to the transportationplanning process in urbanized areas.

§ 450.104 Definitions.

(a) Except as otherwise provided,terms defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a) areused in this part as so defined.

(b) As used in this part:(1) "Governor" means the Govemor of

anyone of the fifty States, or PuertoRico, and includes the Mayor of theDistrict of Columbia.

(2) "Designated Section 9 Recipient"means that organization designated inaccordance with Section 9(m) or 5(b)(1)of the UMT Act, as amended, as beingresponsible for receiving and dispensingSection 9 and/or Section 5 funds.

(3) "Metropolitan planningorganization" means that organizationdesignated as being responsible,together with the State. for carrying outthe provisions of 23 U.S.C. 134. asprovided in 23 U.S.C. 104(f)(3), andcapable of meeting the requirements ofSections 3(e)(1). 5(1), 8 (a) and (c) and9(e)(3)(G) of the UMT Act (49 U.S.C.1602(e)(1), 1604(1). 1607 (a) and (c) and1607a(e)(3)(G)). The metropolitanplanning organization is the forum forcooperative transportationdecisionmaking.

(4) "Annual (or biennial) element"means a Ust of transportationimprovement projects proposed forimplementation during the first year (or2 years) of the program period.

(5) "Transportation improvementprogram (TIP)" means a stagedmultiyear program of transportationimprovements including an annual (orbiennial) element.

§ 450.106 Metropolitan planningorganization.

(a) Designation of a metropolitanplanning organization shall be made byagreement among the units of generalpurpose local government and theGovernor. To the extent possible. onlyone metropolitan planning organizationshould be designated for each urbanizedarea or group of contiguous urbanizedareas.

30340 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 127 / Thursday, June 30, lb83 / Rules and Regulations

3. Former Part 450. Subpart C Isredesignated as Part 450. Subpart Bandrevised to read as follows:

Subpart B-Transportation ImprovementProgram

Sec.450.200 Purpose.

impact assessment process. Theseactivities shall be included as necessaryand to the degree appropriate for thesize of the metropolitan area and thecomplexity of its transportationproblems.

(b) The planning process shall beconsistent with:

(1) Sections B(e) and 3(e) (49 U.S.C.1607 and 1602(e)) of the UMT Actconcerning involvement of theappropriate public and privatetransportation providers;

(2) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of1964 and the Title VI assuranceexecuted by each State under 23 U.S.C.324 and 29 U.S.C. 794.

(3) Section 105(f) of the SurfaceTransportation Assistance Act of 1982regarding the involvement of minoritybusiness enterprises in FHWA andUMTA funded projects (Pub. 1.. 97-424,Section 105(f); 49 CFR Part 23); and

(4) Section 16 of the UMT Act 49U.S.C. 1612). Section 165(b) of theFederal-Aid Highway Act of 1973. asamended. and 49 CFR Part 27, which callfor special efforts to plan public masstransportation facilities and servicesthat can effectively be utilized byelderly and handicapped persons.

(c) At the time the .TIP/ annual (orbiennial) element is submitted. the Stateand the metropolitian planningorganization shall certify that theplanning process is being carried on inconformance with all applicablerequirements of:

(1) 23 U.S.C. 134. Section 8 of the UMTAct (49 U.S.C. 1607) and theseregulations;

(2) Sections 174 and 176 (c) and (d) ofthe Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7504. 7506(c) and (d)).

Subpart B (§§ 450.200-450.206)Redesignated as Subpart C(§§ 450.30~50.306).

2. Part 450. Subpart B, MetropolitanPlanning Funds. (40 FR 38151, August 27.1975. as amended) is redesignated asPart 450, Subpart C.

The sections are renumbered asfollows:

(b) Principal elected officials ofgeneral purpose local governments shallbe represented on the metropolitanplanning organization to the extentagreed to pursuant to paragraph (a) ofthis section.

§ 450.108 Urban transportation planningprocess: Funding.

(a) Funds authorized by 23 U.S.C.104(f) shall be made available by theState to the metropolitan planningorganization, as required by 23 U.S.C.104(f)(3).

(b) Funds authorized by Section 8 ofthe UMT Act (49 U.S.C.1607) shall bemade available to the metropolitanplanning organization, to the extentpossible, in urbanized areas withpopulations of 200,000 or more or wherethe metropolitan planning organizationrepresents a group of contiguous orrelated urbanized areas with anaggregate population of 200,000 or more.In urbanized areas with populationsbelow 200,000, such funds shall be madeavailable to the State. at the State'soption. to allocate among suchurbanized areas, or. with respect to any&iven urbanized area, to use for thebenefit of such area with theconcurrence of the metropolitanplanning organization. If the State doesnot elect this option. these funds shallbe made available directly to themetropolitan planning organization. tothe extent possible.

(c) In urbanized areas withpopulations of 200,000 or more. theState. metropolitan planningorganization, and designated Section 9or 9A funds recipient, where Section 9 or9A funds are used for pla!IDingpurposes, shall develop a unifiedplanning work program (UPWP) whichdescribes urban transportation andtransportation related planningactivities anticipated in the area duringthe next 1- or 2-year period including theplanning work to be performed withFederal planning assistance and withfunds available under Section 9 or 9A. ifany. The UPWP shall be endorsed bythe metropolitan planning organization.(OMB Control Number 2132-(031)

(d) In urbanized areas withpopulations below 200,000, the State andthe metropolitan planning organization(and where Section 9 or 9A funds are tobe used for planning, the designatedrecipient) shall cooperatively describeand document how Federal planningfunds and funds available under Section9 or 9A if any, would be expended forplanning in each area, who would do thework and what work in general wouldbe done. The work proposed shall beendorsed by the metropolitan planningorganization.

(e) The staff resources of otheragencies (such as the State, localgovernment and transit operator staff)may be utilized where appropriate tocar~y out the planning process, includingthe activities funded with Federalplanning funds. through contractualagreements.

§ 450.110 Urban transportation planningprocess: Products.

The urban transportation planningprocess shall include the developmentof:

(a) A transportation plan describingpolicies. stra tegies and facilities orchanges in facilities proposed. Thetransportation plan shall be formulatedaccording to the requirements of 23U.S.C. 134 and Section 8 of the UMT Act(49 U.S.C. 1607) which include andanalysis of transportation systemmanagement strategies to make moreefficient use of existing transportationsystems.

(b) A transportation improvementprogram (TIP) including an annual (orbienniai) element as prescribed inSubpart B of this part. The program shallbe a staged multiyear program oftransportation improvement projectsconsistent with the tranportation plan.(OMB Control Number 2132-0529)

(c) Other planning and projectdevelopment activities deemednecessary by State and local officials toassist in addressing transportationissues in the area.

§ 450.112 Urban transportation planningprocess: Participant responsibilities.

(a) The metropolitan planningorganization, the State, and publiclyowned operators of mass transportationservices shall determine their mutualresponsibilities in the development ofthe planning work program,transportation plan and TIP specified inSections 450.108 and 450.110.

(b) The metropolitan planningorganization shall endorse thetransportation plan and TIP required bySections 450.110 and 450.204. Theseendorsements are prerequisites for theapproval of programs of projects inurbanized areas pursuant to 23 U.S.C.105(d) and 134(a), Section 8(c) of theUMT Act (49 U.S.C. 1607(c)), andSubpart B of this part.

§ 450.114 Urban transportation planningprocess: Certification.

(a) The urban transportation planningprocess shall include activities tosupport the development andimplementation of a transportation planand TIP/annual (or biennial) elementand subsequent project developmentactivities. including the environmental

Fonner section

450.200 .450.202 .450.204 ..450206 .

New section

~.300

~.302

450.304450.306

Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 127 I Thursday. June 30, 1981 I Rules and Regulations 30341

SHC.

450.202 AppliGllbilily.450.204 Transporhltion improvement

program: General.450.206 AnnulIl (or biennial) element:

Project selection.450.208 Annual (or hiennilll) element:

Content.450.210 Selection of projects for

implementation.450.212 Program approval.

Authority: 23 U.S.C. lOS, 134(a). and 135(h);Sections 3. 5. and 8(c) of the Urban MassTransportation Act of 1964. as amended (49U.S.C. 1602. 1604. and 1607(c); Sections 174and 176 of the Clean Air Act (42 U S.C. 7504and 7506); and 49 CFR 1.48(b) and 1.51.

Subpart B-TransportationImprovement Program

§450.200 Purpose.

The purpose of this subpart is toestablish regulations for thedevelopment, content, and processing ofa cooperatively developedtransportation improvement program(TIP) in urbanized areas.

§ 450.202 Applicability.

(a) The provisions of this subpart shallbe applicable to projects in or servingurbanized areas with funds madeavailable under:

(1) 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(6) (urban systemprojects);

(2) 23 U.S.C. 103(e)(4) (Interstatesubstitution projects);

(3) Sections 3, 5, 9. and 9A of theUrban Mass Transportation Act of 1964,as amended (UMT Act) (49 U.S.C. 1602.1604, 1607a and 1607a-l) (UMTA capitaland operating assistance projects);

(4) 23 U.S.C. l04(b)(l) (projects onextensions of primary systems inurbanized areas), except as provided inthis subpart

(5) 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(5) (A) and (B)(projects on the Interstate System),except as provided in this subpart.

(6) 23 l,J.S.C. 144 (highway bridgereplacement and rehabilitation projects).except as provided in this subpart.

(b) Projects under paragraphs (a) (4).(5) and (6) of this section which are forresurfacing. restoration. rehabilitation.'reconstruction (4R). or highway safetyimprovement; and which will not alterthe functional traffic capacity orcapability of the facility being improvedmay be excluded from the TIP includingits annual (or biennial) element byugreement between the State and themetropolitan planning organization.

§450.204 Transportation Improvementprogram: General.

(a) The TIP, including the annual (orbiennial) element, shall be developed bythe metropolitan planning organization,the State and publicly owned operatorsof mass transportation services in

cooperation with recipients authorizedunder Sections 5. 9. or 9A of the UMTAct (49 U.S.C. 1604. 1607a or 1607a-l).

(b) The TIP shall as a minimum: (1)Consist of improvements from thetransportation plan developed underSection 450.110(a) and recommended forFederal funding during the programperiod;

(2) Cover a period of not less than 3years;

(3) Indicate the area's priorities; and(4) Include realistic estimates of the

total costs and revenues for the program,.period.

(c) The metropolitan planningorganization eng,orsement of the TIPincluding the annual (or biennial)element is a prerequisite for theapproval of programs of projects inurbamzed areas pursuant to 23 O.s1:.105(d) and 134(a), and Section SIc) of theUMT Act (49 U.S.C. 1607(c)). The State,metropolitan planning organization, andpublicly owned operators of masstransportation services are encouragedto develop simplified procedures forupdating or modifying an endorsedannual (or biennial) element.

(d) The TIP including the annual (orbiennial) element shall be submitted:

(1) To the Governor and the UrbanMass Transportation Administrator. and

(2) Through the State to the FederalHighway Administrator for use as abasis for meeting the applicable airquality procedures contained in 23 CFRPart 770 and for the subsequentapproval of the statewide program ofprojects under 23 U.S.C. 105 inaccordance with § 450.212 and 23 CFRPart 630.

§ 450.206 Annual (or biennial) element:Project selection.

(a) Federally funded projects shall beselected for inclusion in the annual (orbiennial) eiement at all phases in thedevelopment of the transportationimprovement for which program actionis proposed. The projects to be includedin the annual (or biennial) element ofthe TIP shall be selected in accordancewith:

(1) State and local law;(2) 23 U.S.C. 105(d) regarding the

selection of urban system projects bythe appropriate local officials withconcurrence of the State highwaydepartment;

(3) 23 U.S.C. 103(e)(4) and 23 CFR Part476 regarding the selection of Interstatesubstitution projects by the responsiblelocal officials; and

(4) Procedures acceptable to the Statehighway department, the metropolitanplanning organization. and local publictransit operating officials.

(b) The endorsement of the annual forbiennial) element of the TIP by themetropolitan planning organizationconstitutes the selection of the projectsby local officials pursuant to 23 U.S.C.105(d) and 23 U.S.C. 103(e)(4).

§ 450.208 Annual (or biennial) element:Content.

(a) Except as provided in Section450.210(b)(3) and (4). the annual (orbiennial) element shall contain projectsselected under Section 450.206 andendorsed under § 450.204.

(b) With respect to each project underparagraph (a) of this section the annual(or biennial) element shall include;

(1) Identification of the projects.including the phase of phases proposedfor implementation.

(2) Estimated total cost and theamount of Federal funds proposed to beobligated during the program period.

(3) Proposed source of Federal andnon-Federal matching funds; and

(4) Identification of the recipient andState and local agencies responsible forcarrying out the project.

(c) Projects proposed for Federalfunding that are not considered to be ofappropriate scale for individualinclusion in the annual (or biennial)element may be grouped by functionalclassification, geographic area or worktype.

(d) The annual (or biennial) elementshall be reasonably consistent with theamount of Federal funds expected to beavailable to the area. Federal funds thathave been allocated to the areapursuant to 23 U.S.C. 150 shall beidentified.

(e) The total Federal share of projectsincluded in the annual (or biennial)element and proposed for funding underSections 5. 9, or 9A of the UMT Act (49U.S.C. 1604, 1607a and 1607a-l) may notexceed apportioned Section 5. 9. or 9Afunds available to the urbanized areaduring the program year (or 2 years).

§ 450.210 selection of projects forImplementation.

(a) The projects proposed to beimplemented with Federal assistanceunder Sections 3. 5. 9 and 9A of theUMT Act (49 U.S.C. 1602. 1604. 1607aand 1607a-l) and nonhighway publicmass transit projects under 23 U.S.C.103(e)(4) shall be those contained in theannual (or biennial) element of the TIPsubmitted to the Urban MassTransportation Administrator.

(b) Upon receipt of the TIP, the Stateshall include in the statewide programof projects required under 23 U.S.C. 105:

(1) Those projects drawn from theannual (or biennial) element Rnd

30342 Federal Register I Vol. 48, No. 127 I Thursday, June 30, 1983 I Rules and Regulations

proposed to be implemented withFederal assistance under 23 U.S.C.104(b)(6) (Federal-aid urban system) inwhich the State concurs): provided,however, that in case any where theState does not concur in a nonhighwaypublic mass transit project. a statementdescribing the reasons for thenonconcurrence shall accompany thestatewide program of projects.

(2) Those projects drawn from theannual (or biennial) element andproposed to be implemented withFederal assistance under 23 U.S.C.l04(b)(l) (projects on urban extensionsof the Federal-aid primary system) and23 U.S.C. 104(b)(5) (Interstate Systemproje~ts in urbanized areas); and 23U.S.C. 144 (highway bridge replacementand rehabilitation projects), in which itconcurs;

(3) Those projects not drawn from theannual (or biennial) element that areproposed to be implemented withFederal assistance under 23 U.S.C.104(b)(6) (Federal-aid highway urbansystem). 23 U.S.C. l04(b)(l) (Projects onurban extensions of the Federal-aidprimary system) and 23 U.S.C. 104(b)(5)(Projects on the Interstate System)provided that:

(i) Previous phases of such project orprojects were selected pursuant toSection 450.206, and advanced;

(ii) Such project or projects are forhighway transportation improvementsfor which there has been a Federalauthorization to acquire right-of-way orFederal approval of physicalconstruction or implementation whereright-of-way acquisition was notpreviously fE!"derally funded; and

(iii) A statement accompanies thestatewide program of projects whichincludes for such projects the views ofthe metropolitan planning organizationand indicates how the requirements of23 U.S.C. 134(a) have been met; and

(4) Those projects not drawn from theannual (or biennial) element that wereexcluded under section 450.202(b) andare proposed to be implemented.

(c) The preparation and endorsementof the TIP. the selection of projects inaccordance with this subpart, and theagreement under section 450.202(b), ifany. will meet the requirements of 23U.S.C. 105(d), 23 U.S.C. 134(a) andSection arc) of the UMl' Act (49 U.S.C.1607(c)).

(d) The State shall notify theappropriate metropolitan planningorganizations of the 23 U.S.C 105program actions taken on projects ineach urbanized area.

§ 450.212 Program approval.(a) Upon the determination by the

Federal Highway Administrator and the

Urban Mass TransportationAdministrator that the TIP or portionthereof is in conformance with thissubpart and that the planning process isin conformance with Subpart A,programs of projects and InterstateSubstitution projects selected forimplementation under §§ 450.210 and450.206, respectively will be consideredfor approval as follows:

(1) Federal-aid urban system projectsincluded in the statewide program ofprojects under 23 U.S.C. 105 will beapproved by:

(i) The Federal Highway administrator;with respect to highway projects;

(ii) The Urban Mass TransportationAdministrator with respect tononhighway public mass transitprojects; and

(iii) The Federal HighwayAdministrator and the Urban MassTransportation Administrator jointly inany case where the statewide programof projects submitted pursuant to 23U.S.C. 105 does not include all Federal­aid urban system nonhighway publicmass transit projects contained in theannual (or biennial) element.

(2) Interstate substitution nonhighwaypublic mass transit projects included inthe annual (or biennial) element will beapproved by the Urban MassTransportation Administrator.

(3) Projects proposed to beimplemented under Sections 3, 5. 9. and9A of the UMT act (49 U.S.C. 1602. 1604.1607a and 1607a-l) included in theannual (or biennial) element will beapproved by the Urban MassTransportation Administrator afterconsidering any comments receivedfrom the Governor within 30 days of thesubmittal required by § 450.204(d)(1).

(4) Federal-aid urban extensions ofprimary projects, Interstate projects andhighway bridge replacement andrehabilitation projects included in thestatewide program of projects under 23U.S.C. 105 will be approved by theFederal Highway Administrator.

(b) Approvals by the Federal HighwayAdministrator or joint approvals by theFederal Highway Administrator andUrban Mass TransportationAdministrator will be in accordancewith the provisions of this subpart andwith 23 CFR Part 630, Subpart A. Theseapprovals will constitute:

(1) The approval required under 23U.S.C. 105; and

(2) A finding that the projects arebased on a continuing, comprehensivetransportation planning process carriedon cooperatively by the States and localcommunities in accordance with theprovisions of 23 U.S.C. 134.

(c) Approvals by the Urban MassTransportation Administrator .....ill be in

accordance with the provi~ions of thissubpart. These approvals will constitute:

(1) The approval required underSection arc) of the UMT Act (49 U.SF1607(c));

(2) A finding that the program is basp.don a continuing, cooperative andcomprehensive transportation planningprocess carried on in accordance withthe provisions of Section a of the UMTAct (49 U.S.C. 1607). as applicable;

(3) A finding that the projects areneeded to carry out a program for aunified officially coordinated urbantransportation sytem in accordance withthe provisions of Section 3(e)(1), 5(1). orarc) of the UMT Act (49 U.S.C.1602(e)(1), 1604(1) or 1607(c)). asapplicable; and

(4) In nonattainment areas whichrequire transportation control measures,a finding that the program conformswith the SIP in accordance withprocedures in 49 CFR Part 623.

Part 613 of 49 CFR is amended as setforth below:

PART 613-PLANNING ASSISTANCEAND STANDARDS

4. Suppart A of Part 613 is revised asset forth below:

Subpart A-Urban TransportationPlanning

§ 613.100 Urban transportation planning.

The urban transportation planningregulations implementing 23 U.S.C. 134and Section 8 of the Urban MassTransportation Act of 1964, as amended(49 U.S.C. 1607), which requirecomprehensive planning oftransportation improvements which areset forth in 23 CFR Part 450, Subpart A,are incorporated into this subpart.(23 U.S.C. 104(£)(3), 134 and 315; sec. 3, 5, 8, 9.and 9A of the Urban Mass TransportationAct of 1964, as amended [49 U.S.C. 1602, 1604,1607, 1607a and 1607a-1): sees. 174 and 176 ofthe Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7504 and 7506);and 49 CFR 1.48[b) and 1.51)

5. Subpart B of Part 613 is revised asset forth below:

Subpart B-TransportationImprovement Program

§ 613.200 Transportation Improvementprogram.

The transportation improvementprogram regulations establishingguidelines for the development. content,and processing of a cooperativelydeveloped transportation improvementprogram in urbanized areas which areset forth in 23 CFR Part 450, Subpart Bare incorporated into this subpart.

Federal Register I Vol. 48. No. 127 / Thursday, June 3D, 1981 I Rules and Regulations 30343

(23 U.S.C. 105. 134[a), and 135(h); secs. 3. 5.and 6(c) of the Urban Mass TransportationAct of 1964, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1602. 1604.and 1607(c)); secs. 174. and 176 of the CleanAir Act (42 U.S.C. 7504, and 7500); and 49CPR 1.48(b) and 1.51)

(Catalog of Federal Domestic AssistanceProgram Numbers 20.205, Highway ResearchPlanning. and Construction; 20.500 Urban

Mass Transportation Capital Grants: 20.501.Urban Mass Transportation CapitalImprovement Loans; and 2().507, Urban MASSTransportation Capital and OperatingAssistance Formula Grants. The provisions ofOMU Circular No. A-95 regarding State andState and local clearinghouse review ofFederal and federally 8ssisted programs andprojects apply to these programs)

Issued on June 27. 1983.R. A. Barnhart,Federal H(flhwoy Administrator. FederalHighway Administration.Arthur E. Teele, Jr.,Urban Ma.~s Transportation Administrator,Urban Mass Transportation Administration(FR Doc. 83··17109 Filed ~2lHI3; S;45 ami

Bli-L1NO CODE 4910-22-111

APPENDIX C

FEDERAL -AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM MANUAL

*Italicized material is published in 23 CFR 450A.

2. AUTHORITY. 23 U.S.C. 104(f)(3), 134, and 315; Sections3, 5, 8, 9, and 9A of the Urban Mass TransportationAct of 1964, as wnended (49 U.S.C. 1602, 1604, 1607,1607a, and 1607a-1); Sections 174, and 176 of theClean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7504 and 7506); and 49 CFR1.48(b) and 1.51.

1. PURPOSE. *To implement 23 U.S.C. 134, and Section 8of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as mnended(UMT Act) (49 U.S.C. 1607), which require that eachurbanized area, as a condition to the receipt of Federalcapital or operating assistance, have a continuing,cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planningprocess that results in plans and progrmns consistentwith the comprehensively planned development of theurbanized area. These plans and progrwns supporttransportation improvements and subsequent projectdevelopment activities in the area.

u. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM MANUALVOLUME 4 PLANNING

CHAPTER 4 URBAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

SECTION 2 URBAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS

Transmittal 370February 15, 1984HHP~l

PurposeAuthorityApplicabilityDefinitionsMetropolitan Planning OrganizationUrban Transportation Planning Process: FundingUrban Transportation Planning Process: ProductsUrban Transportation Planning Process:

Participant ResponsibilitiesUrban Transportation Planning Process:

Certification

Par. l.2.3.4.5 .6.7.8 .

9.

2

b. As used in this directive:

4. DEFINITIONS

(1) Governor - the Governor of anyone of thefifty States, or Puerto Rico, and includesthe Mayor of the District of Columbia.

Vol. 4, Ch. 4Sec. 2

(2) Designated Section 9 Recipient - that organizationdesignated in accordance with Section 9(m)or 5(b)(1) of the UMT Act, as wnended, asbeing responsible for receiving and dispensingSection 9 and/or Section 5 fundS.

(3) Metropolitan Planning Organization - thatorganization designated as being respon­sible, together with the State, for carryingout the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 134, asprovided in 23 U.S.C. 104(f)(3), and capableof meeting the requirements of Sections3(e)(1), 5(l), B(a) and (c) and 9(e)(3)(G)of the UMT Act (49 U.S.C. 1602(e)(1), 1604(1),1607(a) and (c) and 1607a(e)(3)(G). Themetropolitan planning organization is theforum for cooperative transportation decisiorunaking.

(4) Annual (or Biennial) Element - a list oftransportation improvement projects proposedfor implementation during the first year(or 2 years) of the program period.

(5) Transportation Improvement Progrwn (TIP) -a staged multiyear program of transportationimprovements including an annual (or biennial)element.

a. Except as otherwise provided, terms defined in23 U.S.C. 101(a) are used in this directive asso defined.

Federal-Aid Highway Program ManualTransmittal 370, February 15, 1984

3. APPLICABILITY. The provIsIons of this directive areapplicable to the transportation planning processin urbanized areas.

3

6. URBAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS: FUNDING

b. Principal elected officials of general purposelocal governments shall be represented on themetropolitan planning organization to the extentagreed to pursuant to paragraph 5a of this directive.

a. Designations of a metropolitan planning organizationshall be made by agreement wnong the units ofgeneral purpose local governments and the Governor.To the extent possible, only one metropolitanplanning organization should be designated foreach urbanized area or group of contiguous urbanizedareas.

Vol. 4, Ch. 4Sec. 2

a. Funds authorized by 23 U.S.C. 104(f) shall bemade available by the State to the metropolitanplanning organization, as required by 23 U.S.C. 104(f)(3).

b. Funds authorized by Section 8 of the UMT Act(49 U.S.C. 1607) shall be made available to themetropolitan planning organization, to the extentpossible, in urbanized areas with populationsof 200,000 or more or where the metropolitanplanning organization represents a group of contiguousor related urbanized areas with an aggregatepopulation of 200,000 or more. In urbanizedareas with populations below 200,000 such fundsshall be made available to the State, at theState's option, to allocate wnong such urbanizedareas, or, with respect to any given urbanizedarea, to use for the benefit of such area withthe concurrence of the metropolitan planningorganization. If the State does not elect thisoption, these funds shall be made available directlyto the metropolitan planning organization, tothe extent possible.

Federal-Aid Highway Program ManualTransmittal 370, February 15, 1984

s. METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

4

7. URBAN TRANSPORTATION PLfu~NING PROCESS: PRODUCTS. Theurban transportation planning process shall includethe development of:

a. A transportation plan describing policies, strategiesand facilities or changes in facilities proposed.The transportation plan shall be formulated accordingto the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134 and Section 8of the UMT Act (49 U.S.C. 1607) which includean analysis of transportation system managementstrategies to make more efficient use of eXistingtransportation systems.

c. In urbanized areas with populations of 200,000 ormore, the State, metropolitan planning organization,and designated Section 9 or 9A funds recipient,where Section 9 or 9A funds are used for planningpurposes, shall develop a unified planning workprogram (UPWP) which describes urban transportationand transportation related planning activitiesanticipated in the area during the next 1 or2-year period including the planning work tobe performed with Federal planning assistanceand with funds available under Section 9 or 9A,if any. The UPWP shall be endorsed by the metropolitanplanning organization. (OMB Control Number 2132-0031)

Vo 1. 4, Cll. 4Sec. 2

d. In urbanized areas with popuLations below 200,000,the State and the metropolitan planning organization(and where Section 9 or 9A funds are to be usedfor planning, the designated recipient) shallcooperatively describe and doc~ent how Federalplanning funds and funds available under Section 9or 9A if any, would be expended for planning ineach area, who would do the work and what workin general would be done. The work proposed shallbe endorsed by the metropolitan planning organization.

e. The staff resources of other agencies (such asthe State, local government and transit operatorstaff) may be utilized where appropriate to carryout the planning process, including the activitiesfunded with Federal planning funds, througn contractualagreements.

Federal-Aid Highway Program ManualTransmittal 3iO, February 15, 1984

5

9. URBAN TRANSPORTATION PLfu~NING PROCESS: CERTIFICATION

8. URBAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS: PARTICIPANTRESPONSIBILITIES

c. Other planning and project development activitiesdeemed necessary by State and local officials toassist in addressing transportation issues in thearea.

Vol. 4, Ch. 4Sec. 2

a. The metropolitan planning organization, the State,and publicly owned operators of mass transportationservices shall determine their mutual responsibilitiesin the development of the planning work progrmn,transportation plan and TIP specified in paragraphs6 and 7.

b. A transportation improvement progrmn (TIP) includingan annual (or biennial) element as prescribed inFederal-Aid Highway Progrmn Manual (FHPM) 4-4-6,Transportation Improvement Progrmn. The progrmnshall be a staged multiyear progrmn of transportationimprovernent projects consistent with the transportationplan. (OMB Control Nwmber 2132-0529)

b. The metropolitan planning organization shall endorsethe transportation plan and TIP required by paragraph 7and FHPM 4-4-6, Transportation Improvement Progrmn,paragraph 4. These endorsements are prerequisitesfor the approval of progrmns of projects in urbanizedareas pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 105(d) and 134(a),Section B(c) of the UMT Act (49 U.S.C. 1607(c»,and FHPM 4-4-6, Transportation Improvement Program.

a. The urban transportation planning process shallinclude activities to support the developmentand implementation of a transportation plan andTIP/annual (or biennial) element and subsequentproject development activities, including theenviroronental impact assessment process. Theseactivities shall be included as necessary andto the degree appropriate for the size of themetropolitan area and the complexity of itstransportation problems.

Federal-Aid Highway Program ManualTransmittal370, February 15, 1984

6

b. The planning process shall be consistent with:

(2) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964and the Title VI assurance executed by eachState under 23 U.S.C. 324 and 29 U.S.C. 794;

(1) Section 8(e) and 3(e) (49 U.S.C. 1607 and1602(e» of the UMT Act concerning involvementof the appropriate public and private transpor­tation providers;

Vol. 4, Ch. 4Sec. 2

(3) Section 105(f) of the Surface TransportationAssistance Act of 1982 regarding the involvementof minority business enterprises in FederalHighway Arnninistration and Urban Mass Transpor­tation Administration funded projects (PublicLaw No. 97-424, Section 105(f); 49 CFR 23);and

(4) Section 16 of the UMT act (49 U.S.C. 1612),Section 165(b) of the Federal-Aid HighwayAct of 1973, as mnended, and 49 CFR 27,which call for special efforts to plan publicmass transportation facilities and servicesthat can effectively be utilized by elderlyand handicapped persons.

(1) 23 U.S.C. 134, Section 8 of the UMT Act(49 U.S.C. 1607) and these regulations;

(2) Section 174 and 176(c) and (d) of the CleanAir Ac t (42 U. S. C. 7504, 7506 ( c) and (d».

c. At the time the TIP/annual (or biennial) elementis sUbmitted, the State and the metropolitanplanning organization shall certify that theplanning process is being carried on in conformancewith all applicable requirements of:

Federal-Aid Highway Program ManualTransmittal 370, February.15, 1984

APPENDIX D

MPO COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS

------------------------------ ----- -----

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP BY STUDY AREA AND COMMITTEE TYPE

CDMMITTEE: MEMBERSHIP

s·runv ?',nEr~,: (i[l I L..Et·,IF DEb I C3NP,TED I"'IF'Cl :: r,!::~Eti PL..(-~NI\IEF;::

City o·f r-~,bilcnr-:·

l·..l.:::tl. t BEt i 1 E.'Y

CClNDHY, J<:HiiE~·:;

[iEDnGE, Li7?E? no y t·1C CALEJ:J :• f3a·r··y

PRITCHETT, Marva WILLIAMSON, Dale F·E::Rr< I 1'~~:3, Da 1 J ,::\ s l..(-',~ .. J, ~/iolr:~t E .. A~::!HltJURTH, V' i r· q i. 1 THClh:l\1, Hoy BURNETT, William G .. J (-)Cf:::~::;CJN :• B i 11 y 1 .. 1{:,y, Dot.tq St1 I TH, L.. i ·nda HOLLOWAY, Jesse A. TUF;:NET~, ,'J;:H: k

L EJ .. H~ \' , 1'-1 i. h:~ CU E::L. L .. P1F~ , f"~o b E~·r· t: D I XUN, Tf.·?mp 1 E"

CARRIKER, Steven A .. CDI...JI\I'fb, Dav i ci HLJI",ff'ER, Botl I< Pi 1'--J D T , F' <:n.t 1 f,J I L..l< I l\IH :• C 1 a·'/ STENHDLM, Charles A. HP1F::E:, l--Ji:lhu.r l .. ·!UL.BEF(T :• Br· .?tel

F'olic::y Commit tE:oe ===================

c i t·'/ C•f p,tJ .I. 1 E:.··nE~ Ci ty of r:.:,I::J i 1 E•l"lE'•

c i ty of ~-,b ]. 1 F•'J"''F: C:i. t \/

'l of rlt:l j_ ]. €:?'i'"if.·? c :i. t·y- of ,:~,b ' 1 f:?'f'iP .L

c j t:y of I !T!pi:'i.C: -~-loco

c 1 ty of· T\if:·:·

J'ol ... iF:.·s County :.Tc•nF·~:; CDur·,t·y· DDI .. ·I~,r:·T, D i ~;;; t . Et ~301 .. ·1~:-.-F'T, D i ~; t . f3 HDt .. I;~,:F' .. I" ~ D i ~:; t; .. B ~:;m .. i~,F'"i', DiEt • H T. <'t'/ lor- Co u 1 ... , t y·

T "'' ·'/ 1 or· Co u. n t -~-/

F' H l.•J (..) ..... (~n.H; t: i n ~=))) 1 .. -!::,',:P T .. Au 5; t i ·n

••. . 4:' 1.!1

State of Texas, Dist. 30 State of Texas, Dist. State of Texas, Dist .. 79 Tf:~CEl ..... (ib i 1 Ei'li';;·

TX Aeronautics Comm1ssion U .. S. Congress, 17th Dist .. 1.. .ll'"i T ,c:l ..... F t: • lt-J o r· .. t: h West Centr~l TX COG

Tit lt:•

Di·,- .. Tr·z,~f·fic::

D i i- • F' 1 •':1 r-·,n i ·nq 1'1ay(::.r D i i... • F' 1 an / D f:.· -...i C i t:y Enq i nPE·r· r·1 "~ y o ·c· l"layc·r·

Co Hi''' i <:5 ~:; i. onE'··:"· Cou·nty J·,_JclgE· D i. ~:;, t -,- i c t E ·n q .,.. .. Dis;t. Dt:·sig·n l'-1qr .. Ur·h,;.-i_r .. , ~3tudy

F~:r:.·r:~ i df::.•nt E:nqr-. Count·'/ Juclqt.:? Ci::. rnm i ~:;s; i o r·,r:.·r ..

l.Jr· 1:::• E':t. n P 1 ;:: ri E r .. ,q r­Fr·,,~r· T·,- ar .. ,s:; Syr,=.. E) t a. t E'• ~:3 E·' '!"1 i:~ t Ct -,-

E-) tat: E· !:lFi'"''"l tor· r:.: c-:· p '(' t-:1 ·::; ('.:• n t a t.: :1 v f.-:·' FE~r:·r· F.-•st:::·nt;:,i t: i \/E· F;~ i::·~ g i () r··,.;:·:, 1 f.-3 r...1. r.: . ...,, .. T f.:r C F: E·:· p r· (::,· ~:; r::.:· -.--, t . c::: o ~ ~\ c,;; ·,- (·:=\ ~::;~:::.in (·:t r·i F;:r:::iJ J. on;:·~ l (-)d m i r .. , • E:;;E:•C. Di l'"CfC:tCtl"'

'v'i:. t: i nq

X

X X X X X \i /\

X X X

7/09/90

STUDY ('~PFJ~ :DESIGNATED MP[):(~,HE(1 F'L(~NNEP:

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

f~IViAH I L1.... 0Ci.ty CIT Pifnar:i.ll0vJ ..;~ 1 t Ba i :I f.~i

Policy

x

\ ..f'..

v,\

/\

x

-'~"

:-'la'",oi""D j '1'. T j""' <"\ fi' .l. c:Dir". F'ub. ~~oi""k,::;

Cit: y IVI ,~. j"", <"\ (J (2 r'C()i...I"1lt\j JUrJqE~

C: Li ('nin i "::;:, '.~~ i Co (If.~~ r"C~D u '(, t: 'j; ~·.Tu iJg t:::

C:~.:,rniil i :;;~:~'''1 t.: i l'lt:·:~'l'"

f;' :1 .~':'~ ;" ".i :'L "f "j I~J E~ ri ~,.;j i o.

X,;; i :::~. t" E' r I {.~J :i, i"i ("::' f::' i"

""' .. ' •.••• .l... ,~_ ... l...iU.J j to /

C()unty

{.":lfiid r' i 11 Co

(~)mt:i j"" :1. ::. :I. ()C;OI,Ji"it'''l

[: 0 Ll {", t '};'

C:i tV' ofCi ty 0'1'

Ci.ty [,'1" (~,m<"'('illC1

City of Amarillo

bDI···!t:F'T,

t:)Dnn~:;, 1<2 j, thDAVIS, Richard H.i<:FNI\!E:DY, l"Ii kE'

L·JPIFU), Jol'n", ().DE>IEF:~;UI""" E: 1 i ,,,,Ii<':'!...~ P'j F~ F~ ], E;, r:;~ :;. C !"j .~-:\ "j'" dF' lJ F~ [~ E: L.. L.. ~l ~:; h Ci~ r~ ], E·:- ~::i

·rl··mr"I(i~:;:i B i. :L :L3UI!f·lbU!\!, F~DY L..[...(; NC(1 E;; r E.F:;, t<:t:l. J i','ti:" I n

L.. E: f~) !:~: \':. r·1 ikE'F'JTNFF:, C38.ryCUEL.L{.H:;:;. F~:Dbf.~!r· tG(]UDL·JVN , 1\1f.:~r·· r [-!-l J.Hf~IF{E:, l-J i 1bur'

F' i'! ~...j {'~'j ..... i~~'j U 'r; t 1 i'i LJ"i' ::'J:;';., 1'""1 r:> ,; ·i,·i. Y"j E: t·; ~J r"r::: ·::i I ~l h .::':\ i": cll1:~:'~ F: c·; ~;;;, F' 1 ~':':'t '(j ,.- c.: D fO • E::. >~ c'c, :L~ :: ',' ~:.::\ ,Z.: l: D'r'

~~;I)r"if·~:.F:IT ~. l:"~';UE~ t i rl t::,i"':i;]( T t' .~'::i"'!~:~.

T X (:1 E;.! 1"" c;. l"idU t: ;l C" S C() ;i,i!) i ~"~~::~i D (") ;C.: j :-. (;:,c t· c:,"("L.WIT {'I ...- F' t. t'Je' I" t 1"1 ..' ':;:".): C' !"J,::: .!. i:·'id iii 1 y'i "

~:::·ruD'/ fiFE/'"!;. JJE~::; I Ci\inTED r·'IF::·u ~

B(:\YEF~, HtE!\!E'

CUD!<, L..eE=f NCJFZ I FiE·F~ !' 1'1,;~;-:

URD\', Chc:,r·J.E:·~>

L)P;F\E:(';DE , ~J i 1 1 :i. ,;,-;_,n BARRIENTDH, Gonzalo DELCO, Wilhelmina Eli . ...IEF!F:FFO :1 Lc•nc:• LINEBARGER, Libby F! I C::fj(.:,F(DUUI\J :• Doh F!i"l I ·rH, Tt-:~;·· c i "~ 1 ('iPI'-'IBr::: I ~:iTEF;:, f:::t::·rn ;E~ t 1·1

McC::DLLUUGH, Parker (iL.HH I F:E:, :Hi 1 J l3 D 1\1:::: r:~ I...E z :1 H <·H·d:: TUDD :1 Br·uc::f:c• HEILIGENSTEIN, Mike

C::OMMilTEE MEMBFR50JP

t::~i LJ ~:;; 'T 1 l\l Policy Advisory Committee r: cJ c! :1. f::-:· ~:;) 1•··1 ~=t ·f i £:·!

:::: ·:::. ::::: ::::: ;:::; ::::: :;.:: ::;:- ~. : ::::: ;::-.: ::::: ::;;· ;;; :: ::.:: :: .. : ::::: ::::: ::::.

c:: -:!:\ p i t: C; 1 11 i-:;, t: )"' () C:: i t: ';/ D ·f {'1 i...l s::. t j_ '(':

C:i.ty' o'f {.)u!:;;t:in C i t:y o-r i:)ust :i. ·n SDH&PT, Dist. 14 State of l·exas-Travi0 State of Texas-rravis State of Texas-Ttavis State of Texas-Travis

(M'oM

\",•t,l II

Co .. t...:er .. c;o r;

fo;'f iEt .,,.. C) ·r·

c:;ouric i 1 rnE~,T.b.::::~r· Cour,c:: i 1 inc.:•rnbt.•:.·r D :i. <;; t r· :1. c: t. E: i ·1 (J r , ::; t O:i t E:, ~::; E' r·; <'.'1 t 0 i-

i:~~ t·:·:! r::! r· l:.::\ ~::; E·~ r-·, t: <£:"!. t: i v· E'

F·;.: E:· r:.i '( L! ·::·~ ;:.:• r ., t: ,::1 t i ..... F.::·

H i-:0 p ( (:0 ·::.; E::· i"il:.: .,:;; t i \/ (:·?

r; t \-'::\ t, E·! D ·f ·r f.:• ;< Et -~::- ··~- ·r r· i·~·t \/ i ·:::;. [~ (. j .. f~ f::·:• p Y" C·:-:• ;::;. t;:-:• i .. i t -:':':\ t i \/ E•

~::) t E~. t: l-:-? 0 f ·r E~' ::.~ \~'·i. ~:::. ····· T' '(' ,·?., \/ :i. ~:::. c:~ D " F~ •::.~: ~-j (' t·:·:~ ~~=~ E-~' r··: t t:\ t i \/c.~

State of Texas-Williamson State Senator F; t: ""( t: L' D f ·r t? ::.; ;':'1, ~:: ...... L,J : .. 1 1 j_ ,;·Iii';,,,() (i p f.:.; j..:O '; .. r:·· <::; c j'"; t <"::•. t: i \it:·.··

Travis Countv County Judge ·T·, .. :::~.vi.~:;; Cou·nt;./ ·r '(' i:-:t \-' i ~;:) C: C:t Ll r 1 t ..,,... Williamson County

\/ /\

X X ....... i\

\.·· .t\

\/ /• ..

.DE: ~:3 I Ci I\J (i ·r E: L) 1\·1 i·:> (J ~

t~ r:;.~ E: (.:, F' L.. (:1 !\~ 1··-.j E F;~ ;;

COMMITlEE MEMBERSHIP

DF~lJl,Jr-,1~:;•-. .,J I LLE City of Brownsville :.-.:· () (~~~ I rn f;:} f? ·y-

c: c:· ni iH :i. t t; i:a f.-::

T:i. t li? '·./o t i "tic;.J

-------------------- -------------------··----- --------------- ------

C;OnT .ll\!PtE:: ,, lvl i CJUE·].

RDSENBAUN, Luci~do

~~:-~t.J~3·r J: !"··~ , f3t.t ~~;,~:( r·, FITZGIBBDNE, Steve t:::J {1 F~ ~::~ 1::; !I I iJ r1 -:::t c: i C)

i"''!c Nri 1 P, H.:~ r-· r· y

ll'iF'EY., ..J of? f.":·)i'~h:C I f:i, G.. E1, UL.J!)[IRt'~, F{E•nf:?

Camf:o>t·on Couc,t;y C,::~mt-:::,r··o·,···~ Count\/ City of Brownsville City of Brownsville C :i. t:·/ c•f E:,··c.• .. •Jr;~:.v :i. 11 F.·

City of Brownsville

F H t-·J (2) ··• (.', u ~:; t: i r·, Lower Rio Grande Valley ::3DI··!~,F'T ···· {iu ''~ t :i. ct SDH&PT, Dist. 21 State of Texas, Dist. T"(.~;t:;[l ...

TX Aer-onautics Commission Ui~1T"{'l ····· f:· t: • L·Jo r· t h

·}~·-ll·*·i\· Steering Committee ===================

c:;ornin i ::::.s;; i or·iE'r· c:o f'i'J(jj i ~;·~~~ t () )"')E':'i'w

Cour-H:: :1. 1 mE•mbE?l­

C i t y 1···1 a ..-··1,;< q t:?i ..

l'-·1 E:\ y· o r· Co u nc i 1 rnE~rob Ei!r·

Urb<::\n Plan E·ngr

{)r· (;~,::~ P 1 dnner· D't•::;ti·:i.c::t Fnq·~"··

Pt:.~p r-· c•s>E~n tat i ·vE~

\1 1\

X X X

'.Jot:inq -------------··------ ------------------------- --------------- ------

HI t\!UJ"U~:lf:i, T. i rno V!....Pli'JI<F.::, Fr·f?d .J D 1···1!\i ~~.; CJ 1··-~ , P .,:\ u l r;.~ CJ s r:~"' L. i:~: F:> , L. f::~ o n t::' 1 L. I l\lCi< :• :J 0 '"'E~p h ;:::t:E:D, !;J. [,J. Jr· , GONZALES, Edmundo !···! '{ I< E: ~::> , C3 rN E~ q Bh:FDE:NnE:PU :• F\c•1.::1i"ld

1"·'1 f.0 in b E~ r· N .;,~. m (·::?

Airport Adv .. Board Air-poet Adv. Board IJr-· o ~"J·n~; \/ i 1 1~~-? I f3f) Bi"DJ;.;·n,:;-...; i 11 t.-:' I HD Br-ownsville Navig. Dist. Brownsville Navig. Dist. C of C, Hwy Committee C of C, Hwy Committee So. Pac. RR (Houston)

Technical Committee ===~~===~========~=

......... "'" .. ~ ........................................ ·-· ... ~·" ......... ~ .. ..... ..... . ......... _ .. , -··· ~- .......... ··-· ..... -................... _ ........ _ ............................ ..

BF:U(t,.!i\j, L.<i> r c y GP1F(C I?), F' • :J .. GPiLVf."'tN, :JosE~ F,

Brownsville Aviation Dept Br-o~-.n·~~::;v :i. ll F2 E>niJ i r·,E?er· DE·p t Brownsvil18 Planning Dept

X X X

\/ot'Lng

7/09/90

STUDY AREA:DESIGNATED MPO~

AREA PLANNER:

Member Name

SHANAHAN, John H.PECK, GeorgeBROWN, LarryBROWN, Jack

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

BROWNSVILLECity of BrownsvilleJoe Impey

Representing

Brownsville Planning DeptBrownsville Traffic DeptBrownsville Transit DeptCameron County

****

Title

County Engineer

Votil~g

7/09/90

STUDY AREA: DESIGNATED MPO~ AREA PLANNER:

Member Name

COMMITl.EE MEMBERSHIP

BRYAN-COLL. STA. Bryan-College Station Metro. Planning Organization Joe Impey

**** Polley Committee *~** ============~======

Representing Title Voting ----------------·---- ------------------------- ---------------

HOLMGREEN, R. J. TATE, Marvin RINGER, Larry ZEIGLER, Carol D. BOND, James

COOK, Glenn LEARY, Michael IMPEY, Joe CHRISTIE, Richard WILLIAMSON, D. D. MURPHY, Charles E. URIBE, Blas M. IV

Brazos County City of Bryan City of College Station SDH~PT, Dist. 17 Texas A&M University

County Judge Mayor Mayor District Engr. Dep. Chancellor

Brazos Valley Dev Council Director ~HWA - Austin Urban Plan. Lng SDH~PT - Planning Div. Are~ Planner SDH&PT - Pub. Trans. Div. Dir. Pub. Trans SDH&PT, Dist. 17 Planning Engr. TX Aeronautics Commission UMTA - Ft. Worth Planner

v h

v A

v A

X X

COMMilTEE MEMBERSHIP

E'fl..IDY P,REf..~: COF:F'US CHF: I ~:n I DEEI UiWrrE:D i"iPO; f.:iF;:E:n F'L..i;NNEF;: ~

City of Corpus Christi ~J;:3. .l t Ba i. 1 t7···,.-

TUPnER ~ BE·t t·y· lt-JEDB, Bj.J. J.y [). BARNES, Robert N. E I f:3EI'1HPd..Ji::r~, F·,·::~ t GUTIERREZ~ Secundino EDt1UI·~D~::!UN, J .1'1.

CF~I...JL.L., CEtr· 1 CJtiF~zp,, .J(;?su~:;

HARVEY, Brandel M. TAYLUF~, l<(:=r·,nE·tr·, ::;cr~L.F, Gier a 1 d j\jJ:Gi<(~LA!, TOifi t•l I 1\IDF;: , B i 1 l

Pol :i.c::y Coiflfni t:tE·'E'i! =================~=

City of Corpus Christi City of Portland f\IUF!C e·::=. CoLt·,-, t y Regional Transit Aut:h. SDH~PT, Dist. 16 San Patricio County

Technical Committee =============~~====

City of Corpus Christi City of Corpus Christi City of Corpus Christi City of F'or·tlc-:tnd Nu;;:.~cr::?:-::. C::ol...t';ity

Regional Transit Auth. SDH~PT, Dist. 16

T:i. t le

r.,.l<~ yo r· t·1ia yo r· County JudgE· D i r·t::·c: tor· D i ~; t. Eng i nt:?E·r· Cc:. Lt';"i t ;./ :.Tt.tcl qe

TitlE~

Dir·, En(Ji' ... ~3er·v

f.~r:;~:;;t. City Mnqi" D i r· • P 1 "'~ nn i rH;,i C i t ')/ lvli:~ r1<::\U f:?.·r·

Coi...H .. ,t;y Eng i nE·ei­f3E:~nc;?r· a l MncJ r- • De·"~ i IJ'!'., E>ng i nE'i!er

X X X v /\

X

\lot :i. nq

X X v 1\

X X X

7/09/90 COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

~3TLJD ... t' ?)F:E?) ~ DI;L.L.r.~S .. ···I:::··r l·JUHTH DE:~:; I G~'-IPtTED ~'!PO:

r:iPEf-~ Pl...f:·ii\INEF·: ~ North Central Texas Counc1l of Govts CNCTCOG) :JoE~ l mpt:~·;/

·ll··ll--~·-:>i·

LYNN, Dottie.· COHN, ~3am

!AOLFE, l"lar k Bf.)hTfX::l, .Jen·y BOX, GlE-~nn

E'v!10tN~:3, :John TARDY, Charles M.D. ALEXANDER, Jim Ph.D. SMITHEY, Grady Jr. GARRISON, William WEBBER, Virginia

GALL I l-JN.J, Ed \iHU3DI'-J, HEmt-y R?)I\IDLE, f.: andy 'v'EI'JNt:J-:::, Gf2oi-qf.o? DA'v'I!::l, Ric:h.::~-~-cl

1'1l~F\T IN, Ar· t bLPtF:lEI.. .. , (3a r· y THORNTON, Howard 1'1{~·rK IN, R. Dan .J· nCI<~::lON, Jim J'LJDY, NE!i"'tC:y [..J(..)LKEt=~, L.f','E)

KEMBLE, George M.D. S'TfJNE !' ~T. R • HUFFM?~I\J, JamE~s

ENGl .... I !3H, hoy f-I{.)I".IP'f()f..l, Bob

==============:====

City of Arlington City of Carrollton City of· Coj.-:ipr.::'ll City of Dal]..,::t~:;

Cit-..; o·f Dallas l"~ity of 0;::\llc:\~;:;

C:tty of Dallas City of DE!nton C1ty of Duncanville City of Ft. Worth City of Ft. Worth City of (3,'::\rl<~nd

City of Grand Prairie City o·f f--lun;:;t City of Ir-vi·nq City of l'-1i2Sqt.ti tE-: City of N. Richland Hills C'i ty of PlE:\no City of F~:ichar-cl~:;or-·t

Collin County D-~lla~:; ?-":Jr·.:=:'i:':i r.:apid T.,-·an~::.it

Da ll "'~-~; c()Ul"!t'l

D.::1l. 1 a~;; Cot.trd;y :Ch;;n·1ton County Ft. Worth Transport. Auth SDH~PT, Dist. 2 SDH&PT, Dist. 18 ·r <.:\ ·r· -~- a r-1 t c i::o u r-, t .. ,. ·r;:~r·r· ar .. tt Lour-tty

T:i. t le

Cot.tn.::: i 1 alf~,n!Jt~:.··,--· ~,.1,::~·-,.-or-·

Cc:•unc: i 1 mE'rnbF.:·r­C:ot.n .. ·tc i 1 mF2mtJer·

1'-lay·or- Pr .. c.o Tl~·?fi'i

Coui--·tc :i. 1 nH.:.?mbE•r­Co u n c i 1 rn (·::•i'n I:H:• ·~"· i'1EI·..,..-o.,-· F'r-eo Tem Cou·nc: i lrrlE'int:lt::~r·

Cour·1c 'l. l nH:.~rnbE·r--

Co u rH::: i 1 lrtt:::mb f!2r­

Cour,c i l•n(?.fiii:Je.:·r Cot.tr·tc i 1 me.·ml::ie:.··,­r·'li:':\ .. /Di'-

t---1,::~·~.,.-o r· Pi-· o TE·m Cou·,·,c: i 1 rni:.?liib(?.r­t'layor- F'ro Tf"!!fi'l Co mm i ~::;~; i onE:·,-­DP·tH·r F~.:;:•p r E0'5E'n t . Co liifl'l is~:; j_ o ni'.:::-c:o il"lfi"l i. ~5 s:;. i Cl'("Jf?.r·

C:: D ifl !Ti :"1. ~;; :7.; :"J. Ct rl f.:~ 'f""

FhiTr-4 f~:Ppr·t.;:.<::;t::rtt.

D i. -::; t; c i c t: F:i-,~1 r • D:i.<:;.t:r·ic:t Fr .. ,qr. County . .ruc:ICJE~ c;o rnrn :i. ::s ~:;; i 0 fif?:~r·

X X

'./ /\

v .. -..

X

X

X

v /\

><

:"//()C)/ 9()

:;·ruDY ?~F~EA:

DE!:; I UN?~,·rED ~-1F'D :: f.~F;:E{~ PL.P!NI'.,IE:F~ ~

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

EL. F't·~:;o

City o·f El F';:;,so lrJa 1 t B,::i i 1 ey

Policy Cc• mm i t t E~;;:-::

===================

Member Name Representing Titl~

p, t -··1 i::, r· iJ f?. C :i. t i :c.: er·, ARMES, Jay J. City of El Paso Councilman AZAR, Suzanne :3. F'UNCE !' ·rony JCJI\IE~-:i !' L.u thE•r· SANCHEZ, Rogel:i.o D(:l T .. TL.E, J C• f?. 1'~1 .. SANTIESTEBAN, Tati 1.../Cl!i·JEL..I .... , .J<::1c: k l·l(..:lE!hEI=i:·ry, F' at: 1'1DF:.:ENCl, Pau 1 1""-'lCDUI\.Ii=ii .... D, NE:\ncy F'EF(EZ, Nick Cf.~F::I:~,:~,F:lCD, ::.r () E:~ COLEMAN, Ronald D.

City· c:.·f El F'as:;o City o·f El F'c:~!::;o

El Pc;,so Cuu·r·,ty E 1 P;;~·::;;o Cou.nt.:·'l SDH&F'T, Dist. 24 State of ·rexas, D:i.st. 29 State of Texas, Dist. 70 State of Texas, D1st. 71 State of Texas, Dist. 72 State of Texas, D:i.st. 73 State of Texas, Dist. 74 Tov·Jn of ~3ocor·r·o

U.S. Congress, 16th Dist.

Steering Committee ===================

1'1,:;, \/Or·

c:ounc i 1 ii"ii:"!.n Cc·u·nty Juc:lgt.'!! Co m1n :i. ·:7>s; i o nE~r· D i ·:::; t . ErH~I i r·,eE'l­~:; t E\ t E· ~:; i'·:·! r-, iii t o r· F(E·pr·f?·:::;erltii:\t i \le

Fi:t:-~p r·· E?<.:if.·? n t i:'l t i vE~ F;: F:.· 1:::. r· t.-:' c5 \:::.• r·, t "'' t i \/ f.':• FE:· p r· 1"? <;; ,;.:.,. n t ;,:<. t i v E"!

Fit:·?p r· E·'5F:r·, t "'' t.: i \if?.

·lHH~··>.t

X v /\

X

...... /\

X X v .'"\

X \r' .'\

Member Name Representing Title Votinq

DDRr:.""iDCJ !' Ft-?nn:i. n HARNED, David W. F'f.H:::KEt-:;:, .Jim PEF;:RY, Clf:?.C•rge :::;1v1 I TH, J. Dr·-..;idi·:~n

VALENCIA, Nestor A. CIEOF~UE:S, i.,1a1·· t :i. l'1UI ... lt:L:: , F:::au l F::: I VI:::F::?~ !' Robi?r- t Bf.nTL..E, Jc•e !"I .. DOMINGUEZ, Carlos r::f.WI~:;E:Y, ~Judy

DUI~FI"IM·J, t·1a r-· k HALL.., Jer-r-y MONTGOMERY, Jerry GOODWIN, G. Michael HI::]:::I·H~NDEZ:, .J i?.~;u ·::;

PfHCE, :rudj.th !"1.

[: :i. t;./ L1 t·:l C:i t:y

Cit·/ City Ci.ty

,.;;:· D I

C) i'" () i~

D ·f

D ·f o·f

r·· -·

E~

F.

F F ~:::· 1 ....

]. PE:~!:;o ., P,'::l.SO .i.

1 Fl ~~ ~:;o 1 P,;:,~::.o

1 F',7.\:";()

1 ["• ~:t ·:;[I I

El P,:;;.!:;;c. County E 1 Fa~:;o Cour,t:··l 1:: J. F'a<::;o County SDHf.,:Pr, D i ·:; t . 2it L::;DI···It,F··r, Dis t.. ;::!'-~

SDH&F'T, Dist. 24 Sun Metro (Transit) To\.'.Jn of P·,·nthor·,y Tov~·n o·f (inthor·t·1l

To1 .. ~n c•"f C 1 i nt

C:i. ty (:.·f E:::l PCOI!::;(:. FAA - SW Region<Ft: Worth)

C i t'r' Er-·,q i ·nc:.'E·r· D i r·.. F't.tb. ll~or· ks (1c:c::P!5:-s. Coo·,···d. Pt i r· p c:. r·· t l'"l"!"·,q r· • D i 1··. Tr· ,::;..ft. i c:: Dir· .. Pl.::\r·,ning CD ii'i in :"i. ·::;. ~;;. i D r"1 E~ r ..

Ch :i. f.·:·:·f Er·, ... / i r·on .. Count'/ Enq :"1. ·nr?G:~·~""·

Dis t r· i. c t En(;.;r· .. DE·~5 i. gr .. , ErHJ :L nE!i·::::·r· F'1annint:] r-·idmi.·n. Di.r·. rr·ansi.t

lvlayor-

1''1 "'' y o r· Councilman

...... l\

X

v ......

:x: X X X

X X X \/ /\

b'TUDY (.";PE(l: DEb I E:1t· .. I(.:;TED l"IF'C:l :: r;F(E{~ PL..{~,NNI::::h: ~

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

E:L.. Pt:::;f3D City !:O'f 1:::1 F'as;u VJ<::•.l t Ba. i 1 E•').i

Steering Committee ==============~=~~=

Member Name Pepresenting -------------------- --~----------------------

LEPdiY !' i"l ike DRI'1ISBY, :Tu~:;t in BP, I LEY, [,J,:i 1 t (.)EJU I Rt-:;:E, 11anw:! 1 1-!(;F{E, l-Jilbu,-K 0 1-i r:~;l\1 :• 1'1 i k e BAF:(TEL, He:~rb

i::;: EY N A , 1.,1 ,::u.t r· <::.

F!··ll.-J{~, ··-· P,u s; t i r; Hi Co C:h-· C.H'H.iE:! CDC SDH~s:F'T ···· P1us t ]. r··, Tf.':tCB ····· E 1 F'<::\~::;c:o

Ur•IT?~ -- Ft. l-Jor- th US Army - Ft. Bliss University on Texas, EP Ysleta Ind. School Dist.

U 'f'l::) d r·, :·:· 1 a r·, E., ... , CJ .,...

E ::-:: F2C u t: i ·,if';· .D i ·,··· . (~:, r· r-::·~ ~~:1. F' l c.-:.. r·, r·1 t·::.· r F;:e::C] i o ·n .. 3l ~;)1 . ..1p \/i' .. F~:E~(.::J :i. 0 .,. .. fc\ l {.~cl ifi l. (j n

c:!·-i i f·:?·f 131 dg t3l ... nd Frof. CE:: Dt.':pt. f·kltn i ·n i ·:::. tr· a. tor·

'v'o t i n;~1

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

HARLINGEN-SAN BENITOCity of HarlingenJoe Impey

****CommitteeFolicy****

STUDY AREA~

DESIGNATED MPO~

AREA PLANNER~

Member Name

VALENCIA, TiviaCARD, H. WilliamGALVAN, GilbertGARCIA, G. G.SALDANA, FrankPUHL, JohnHARWELL, Ronald

LEARY, MikeIMPEY, Joe

Representing

Cameron CountyCity of HarlingenCity of San BenitoSDH&PT, Dist. 21Town of CombesTown of Palm Val layTown of Primara

FHWA - AustinSDH&PT - Planning Div.TACB -TX Aeronautics CommissionUMTA - Ft. Worth

Title

CommissionerMayorMayorDistrict Engr.MayorMayorMayor

Urban Plan EngrArea Planner

Voting

xvA

xXXx

7/09/90 COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

================:~==

HOUSTON-GALVESTONHouston-Galveston Area Council (HGAC);Joe Imp(~y

~:3TUDY AHE(4 :DEb I EJN{:.)TED rIPO:{H~:E{~ PLANNEF::

Policy Commi tteE~

HDL·JAFW, SteveSKELTON, B. Don Sr.STRAMLER, James H.LmJ~;ON, Davi d {).BETTIS, Kenneth G.HARHIS, Richard L.SARGENT, Jeff Jr.DOODI\lER, John (3.

JILU~, Rober·t :r.KNUDSON, Patricia D.HEN~3CH, BillMCWHOHTER, James F.DRACHENBERG, RonaldFITZGERALD, MichaelANDERSON, Terry A.l....INI:n:;AY, Jon S.BENTON:. ,James F.f.::'EDU=1I<, J"cd";n M.BU::;NTON, J. DonDIETERT, Milton M.F~;:{4NKLIN, D. S.

1\1M;:SH{·~ND, DougBRANHAM, Henry L.G?~INEG, Pi':\ul B.~3r;IITH, C.:J.BPOYU~~:3, RaganEFU·..){.W, Pau IS.U~:t:il:~Y, rlichaelCL{~lr~:K, A I anPEIRCE, Allison, R.Ff~:E I SE:, lrJe<51 E'yREIX(..'iCH, (4.:.T. "F'E·tr~"

PUGH, JamE's D.CUELU'~IR, F~ob~?r" tCHRISTI, Richard G.CH.... (WSON, Ha ns~ C.BOHUSLAV, BenjaminZEIGLEH, Carol D.YOUNG, Franklin C.WILLIAMS, He ~ert W.SCl-·IM I DT, {=t I anGRIFFIN, James W.H{iF~E, hlilbur'

At-Large Cities/CountiesAt-Large Cities/CountiesAt-Large Cities/CountiesBr" c:\~~or' i,::\ CountyChambel-s CountyCity of Bayt()~'4n

City of GalvestonCi ty of' HOl...l~5ton

City o'f Hou~:;tonCi ty co'f Hou·::..;tonCi ty o'f F'asad€."n,:tCity of Texas CityF()l- t BE'nd CountyG<i~ I VE"'~T:; torI CountyHi:"ilr"'c' is CourltyH,~ '1- r' :1. f~; Co un t yLi bE:~r' ty Cour'ltyMetropolitan Transit AuthMontgomery CountySDH&PT, Dist. 12Waller' County

City of GalvestonC'I. ty of I-·IoustonCity 0'1" H()u!:::.tonCity' o ..r l···loustonEF'('~ F;;(~q ion 'v'IFA(4 HOI...I~;tor·1

Fl-·n.-J(~ _.. (.~usti·n

HCi{.~IC

Harris Co. PC Dept.Harris Co. Toll Hoad AuthPo ',- t of' Ft· E'~E?P() '1- tF'oy.. t of Housto'(',SDH&PT - Planning Div.~::iDHl,:F'T ,.. Pub .. ·fl-an,:; .. D:i. \/.SDH&PT, Dist. 12SDH&PT, Dist. 13!:mH~>:PT:. 0 i!5 t. 17SDH&F'T, Dist. 20'fACB .- HoustonTX Aeronatics CommissionTexas Turnpike AuthorityUI'lITA ..... Ft.. L··Jor· th

Titlf::"

Dir' Pl-C;~} (HGPlC)Clii1,:"ln (1....i:'\I::·ot·tt-:~)

Cl,TIi:"iln (1'10 City)Count\/ Attor"nE,'yC~ (I in,T, i. ~; ~:; i C) r'IEI roDi j" Plan/TY"':'I·rD i r" 'fr-' ,i;,f/Tl- ",Ins tCOl...lnC i Im(,?i,lbE'r-'D i j- "T' t· "'I f / T r-' a'nD i r' ;:::'1 i,"iln.lD(·::::vt.':' 1Dir" Traf'/Tl"""i::lnD i r' T j- ,:;\ f / T j" ,,:i nCc<unt·,.. En(] i y"leer'Co I...l n t l E: r-II] :i. rH:':~ (,? r"County Er-',g i rH,,'(·:·':'rCounty .:.TudcJeCou",·,t." Enl] i l""",E·~("?r"

(i''',s t Gi::::n r'1'niJ r'Cour",ty Er··lqi. 'nE'er'Dis t: r' :i. c t FrH] r" "CDur·,t"!i Ey',(] i r-·IE·:'er

l..Jhi:H·V(:?~:; Mnqr'"Ch:i. Ed, (;0 Bur'(~v :i. a t :i. 0 r-', D i iOO

•

Dil"""" Public L·Jk·,,:,Ch i E?"f, E3 t. Fr" oCJ~:~upvr" (.~,p SY!5LII-b;.:\n P 1 ,"I'n Fr-lgr"Tr·c'l·n:;:;. Mnqr""Dir", Poll" etc'lE;.::t?cutivE' Di'('Port Dir"f.,,·c:t:orE;< f2C '..1t i vc? D i r ..Enq 'ff" ar",:;;; :;;y!;D:i. 'j"' F·l...lb 1 i c:: ·f·c· ,::,r"lTr" <::H"l P:I. ari f.4cJril.i. nDic.;t·,":i.ct E:rHJr'D i !'::. t: 1- :1. c:: t E'nq r'D:i.~:;tr·:j.c:t E'I"lgr'Fi:l~?qion;':ill bl...lIJ\iC:-', :i. c?f:. F' :I. ;:;. y", / Pro [I

p, c: t: j;:: ;.; C,' c:" D i ·c· •F~: E~ CJ :i. 0 r', ,::1 1 P'l d ro :i. r', •

'v'o t i n~}

xxXXVl\

XVl\

x

v......

XXXX

XX

'7/09/90

~:3'rUD\/ (~I::::E{~ :DE~::; I C3N("~TF:D fiIPc):{~, F:( E (~I F'L.. i=i 1''.11\1E h~ :

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

J'EFF: EF:;:!3ClI\I--'OHtiI\lC)ESoutheast Texas Regional Plan. Comm.::r ()t.? I IT' rH=.'"y·

Polic',;

(~3E'TRPC)

xXVi\

xXXX

xXy/'

y/\

xX

T:i. tIt::.,

t'1ayor"1":'1 {:it '';/ 0 r­t"layoi'''l"layor"j\1a"/o'l'"1"1i:'lyor"1"1 a yo r"t;I;:lyo '(.

Ur-ti.;:'In F' 1an Enqr"Bdl] t t: f:' 1 ,.;:\nn i ·n<;.JI:'::ngr- 'li"·,·:':i.r-,:,; E,'/:;:;Tr ,7:'1"1"',':;" P:I. a.r"inE~rf::; t ,::\ t: (.? S e r", i;:'\ t: 0 r"~3 t i:':"l t f.~ ~:3E~'na t: 0";'"

r;:F,'p j- E~~:::,E;'''''', t: El t i vet~:pp '(. f:,'~:;E:"f"; tat i \/f:::

F:: C':' p r" E·' s E' (', t <:1 t i v f.'~

r;:(:'·:!pr·e~::.f!:~nt;:\ t i \/F.?

1:~I:,iP r- (',?SE,'n tat i \/F~

RI:0gionBl Dir-.C,'i'lp t,,, i nCongr" e·:;:·~:;iTiclr,

CO'nC/','" F:'~;:;~::.man

COtlnty ::rUd(Jf~

Cour·,ty J·uc:lqf.0County :.Tudgf.:~

Di~:.tr"ic:t Er·lfJr·.

1"'1 i:''1 'I () ',­t'iIEI'/O'('1···1<::1'/or"1"1;:<.yor"1~1.~·:, 'y D ....

til ,:, '1' 0 rt;I'::i.yO·I"·1"l' ~-::'t .•••/ C) r-

o'f BE'V J. J Clak,,;() -I" Ct", J. r-,EI

of l....umbE''(· tOil(I'f Pir'IE'! For"e",tD f F':'t ,(If.'~h u '(. ~::; to'f f:~oIT,e

Ci. tyCityCityCityCityCityCity Df RDse CityCity of Rose Hill AcresFHvJ{-~ ..... (itF:; tinGDvernor's OfficeSDH&PT - Planning Div.SDutheast Tx RPC (SETRPC)State of Texas, Dist. 3State of 'fexas, Dist. 4state of Texas, Gist. 19State Df Texas, Gist. 20State of TexBs, Gist. 21State of Texas, Dlst. 22State o'f Te~{as, Dj.stn 2~3

n~CB -- B('::!E'IUiI'iO'(·,tU.S. CDast Guard, MSOU.S. Congress, 2nd D:'tst.U.S. Conqress, 9th Gist.

City of BeaumontCity of Bridge City[: i t .~/ (I 'f F.i '1- D \/ Fl! ':::.

City of NederlandCi t·'y' of Ur"i:;\r",gf.::"City of Port ArthurCity of Port NechesCi t:y Df Vielor"City Df West OrangeHai--d:1. n County~TE-?ff·f."r'::;o'n Cou r, t·/(J'(·.::\nqe COU'('lt')/!::;:CH'I?,y"l, D :i. f;'; t. E)O

F' I CI<:C"rr, J E,~r" i'" yE~3HL I l·il(~1\1:. HB '1- j-'''''DI...JI\I(,~,~J{}I Y, hi i ItonELI....IClTT, Hi Ily1'.10RG{·~j\l, (:~,. t~.

FEt~bUSClN, Huc.:JhDUBUISSON, H. P.LITTLETON, DavidL.E (.~r(\;:, 1\1 i c h ,:'\E~ 1f~ l..n"r f:::r~:;. (ilIa'nCUE:t._l...PiF~, F~Db0?C t:DI Ct::: I NE-;Cl!\!, Flo:) bj·"ltiL..EY, 8i 11P("iF;:t:::E:f~, C,::'1 r"1LEWI~-3, Ron~::;(J I L..EJiU, eu j"' t i ~"5

f;3'r I I....F~:;, l'-1ar kPF;:ICE, AlbE.'r"t; ~r.

CoLLtiZo, Frank Jr.f7(:HR, l.jic~JH I T I 1'-1(3 , {.},. (..~.

WI I.... S01\~, Chai-l f.:~s

DRfJOI<S, .::r ,:'IC k

L.OF~:D, EvE.' 1'/riB(.·iNI<J::N, JohnMOORE, SylvesterLaElL(iNC:, CEI r" 1f'ICH-'iON:, DEI (',

SUMMERLIN, Mary E.E, F;.: til···1 P,I"'I, E"1 a r ')1 C.HUI\!'rEi::;:, I..a·(·j-·yTHIBODEAUX, CarlMcKINNEY, Milton R.LEBLANC, Richard P.S'rF~ I 1\1(3EF~, J <::lm(·:?~,

YOUNG, Franklin C.

!3'fl..JD''/ (-\F~EA:

DE:E; I GN{1 TED t~IF'O ~

{:1F;.:E(..i F'L..{.1NNEP:

t1ACHI I, Fhch;a·~-d

GP I FI:::·EN, L.ou is HOLBEF:G, J't:?t-·f DUPH(-:il'1, .Jl':~,::..n

STOLDT, t·1 ike Bm·.JF, Richar-cj BAUMGARTNER, John L .. (..~THf::il"·1, Fi-i:?d

NOI::;:R IS~· Don IH~I<E, B i ll L I ~::;T I ,, Sc.~m

F'PEhl ITT, Buck F' I C~=::ETT, t< i ~-by

J'ClHI'.!SDN, ?:i. C • LE?lHY, M :i. chae 1 I I''!F'EY, J'oi·? D I Ct:::~~>CJN, Temp 1 e f:lH I I"··IE, l .. ·lu.qh BL.f.)D=::, L..ayt:on I''IELTClN, BDb l·JFIGH"I",, Bobby L..E:i::;, T'l .. ·l, 1"1a. i"' v :i. n Uh: I BE :• B 1 as

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

1::: I LL..EF.::N .... ·TE:IviPL..E Central Texas Council of Governments CCTCOG) ."Joe:? I mpf.?.y

Policy ===================

BE~ 11 City City City City City

County of· Bi'?l ton o·f D£;:1 ton o·f Coppi7?ra~::; CovP NO .,C' l...i I

C:i. ty· of C:i. ty of City of City of City c.t' City Df SDH~:F'T,

C:opp€;)r·;:!S Covt~

Hi:':\ l"' k E?i"' 1 .. ·1(:7.! i q h t ~:;

~::: i 11 f?E?'i''l

K i 11 i'?li7.'l"l

~:::i 11E?€'m Temp 1 E!

TE·mp le Ti=.>mp lE:· Dist. 9

Cen. Tex. CCG CCTCOG) FH(.J?) ..... (.~IU~~ t .i. 'f"l

SDH&F'T - Planning Div. State of Texas, Dist. 24 State of Texas, Dist. 53 State of Texas, Dist. 54 State of Texas, Dist. 57 U.S. Army, Fort Hood U .. H. Conqr-E'!Ss~ llt:J·-~ Dist. UI..,.IT'Pi -- Ft. IAc:or" th

C::our;ty E:.1·lq i r·IE'E>r­D i j'"" F't.ib. V.JCI ';"' k ·:::; C:: :i. t y 1'1a·f'·laq E~r· Cc:.u.·i"1C '1. 1 mE~mbc:.::!'f .. P 1 '"' ·n !"'1!:'2·!"·

D'l. !"'. F'uh. vJc:.·f'·ks [ i t·y· J:':"i'IC'j i i'lf::•E•';"

Co ttnc: :'1. 1 mPmbt:::'r .. F' 1 i:.H"i'f"lfYf"

{-1 !:> ~=~ t .. C :1. t ·r' t,·l n g ; ... p 1 i::t 'f"ll".l E• ':"'

1·1.:;1. yo r-

D·i.':;;tr-ic:t Engr-.

E>r:?c::U t; i. \/F.i• D i i ....

l..Ji"·ba;"; P l .::tr-1 ErH~!'I .. (.; r· i·:·? ;,:.. F' l El r"1 ri f? r· ~3ta tc=.~ S::::!na tor· r:~epr·e~5E:'nta t '1. Vt'-"

F\ r:·:• p I"' ;:.::• <:;; E~ ';"'1 t <'~ t i \! F2

h: c:· p r- E· !''i £:-:· ;-·, t: ""t :1. \/ E·

F' ;,:, c :'1. 1 .i. t :i. F:!'::; D i r- • Co r-; q r .. F! s ·;:::.m ,·,,,, n

l..lrh '''' i'l F' :L E'li'"li"iE!r

\)c:. t :i. (iCj

X

v ;\

X v .'"·.

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIF

L("~REDD

Ci ty o'f L.<:1·,-EdD.:TOte :I: mpE:!/

'7./ ()9 / ftC)

U'rUDY {·~FE(~ :DES I E1N{~TI:::D 1'-'lr'C):f~F;:F?~ FL.?-)NI\IFF~::

.l(.,l(..l(..~ F'Dlic\!:===::=:=::::::::::=:=::==:::::::=::::::::

,JU(,,~,F~E:Z, J EtC i r, t D

T·(~-rANhr:::L.(), (41 dor;(,,~,F;:C I (..~, h.. E1.ZAFFIFINI, JudithCLJEL.L.P,F~, I'-!E;:nr' yh(..~r!IClS, ,C1'Cid ';/:3{11\ITD~3:, Fit [I

L.HJ I ~:;, T :i. mH'WEY, JDf.~

f3(~F~Z{~:, {4m c:l nd 0

Ci t'~l of LEI.r·E'dDCi ty of L.ar·E'dc)Ci tV' of L..,::I.rE'dDCit·,; of L.. "':\'f"f.:?doUDH&FT, Dist. 21

UtatE of Texas, Dist .. 43~·JE·;bb Co Li.·n t\/~,JE;bb COU'f"lty

F::' (..~p, ...-FHI;H4 ..... (..~u::;t i'nSDH&FT - Planning Div.South Texas Dev. Council'r("~CB --TX Aeronautics CommissionUt'1'r{~ ..... Ft. L.Jor"th

TitlF:"

[:0 u r'le:: j. ], m<,i '1'"

Courle: i 1mEl,nCounc:: j,lfila'f-'1\1 i:l '/ 0 '1'-

Dis-itric:t Er·lg'f".~; t <:I t E~ ~3E'n<':'1 tor"I::;: E: p r' f:?! ~::. E' ('1 t ,::1 t i \; (:::.'CDu.r-lty JUc:lgE,'C~ D en rn i .~:; ~:;;' i 0 "('f f:? r-

\I;\

V/\

xX

7/09/90 COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

========:=====::======:::=

Representing

City of LongviewCity of LongvIewLlty of LongviewCity of LongviewCity of White OakGregg CountyHarrison CountySDH&PT, Dist. 10SDH&PT, Dist. 19

LONGVIEWCity of LongviewEddie Shafie

x

yA

VA

xvA

x

x

yA

VotingTitle

City ManagerMayorCity EngineerDir Plan & OpnsMayclY-County JudgeCommissionerDistrict Engr.District Engr.

****CommitteePolicy****

Member Name

STUDY AREA:DESIGNATED MPO:AREA PLANNER~

BAUGH, JimGALOSY, LouJOHNSTON, AndyROHNER, EdKUTCH, GeorgeATKINSON, HenryADKISSON, MikeEVANS, James R.JESTER, Lawrence

SMYSER, TomLEARY, MikeSHAFIE, EddieLEARD, Richard

East Texas COGFHWA - AustinSDH&PT, Planning Div.TACB - Tyler

Reg Devel CoodUrban Plan EngrArea PlannerRegional Supvr

~;TUDY ('~FE{::, ~

DE:S I [~)N(:iTED '''iPC):AFE{.~1 PL..P,NNEF::

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

L.UBBCJCf:::Lubbock UTS Steering Committeetr.Ji:~.l t Bcl i :I. E"/

Commi ttf:?F:"

Member Name Feprespnting Title Voting

C:Pl~;:)~3, E:o I::i

1'1c 1"11 Nt\I:, B .. c::TF<EJO, t"1DUq i E·'

BR(iZEI....I...., P, J tDnFPEFlvl(il'~:IJ i mPUF'E, t,·J i 11 :i. ,:'lm 1'1.JUI\IEH, DE' 1 ~'J i r,

MONTFCJRD, John TROBNETT, Nolan J ..CDr-'IBE:f:;T, I.... ar.. r.. '/

Ci. ty Df Ll...lbhockCi ty of 1.... l...lbbockC:i. t;\/ of L.ubbock1....1...11:::1 b 0 c:: k Cou.r·it '/l...i...lbboc k CO;...tr·ltyf;;I:Jf'I:,>p'r, D:i. <::> t:.. ~".:;

~:; t ;::'. t E:' D i' T E' ;{ .':" .::::.

Stepring Committee

DE'p. City r"'lrjiJr'1"1,::I/or"COLine i IV·Jom'::lriComm i ""s i orH:;:'r'(ic:lin i. rl.. P,'::,·:::; t .:D:i. ::::. t. :::::n<;;) i r',UF:'r'F~: c'p r" E·' ~::; t:::' n t <::1. t i \i P

F;: E' P '1" F' ~:> c:' r'l t i::i t :i. \/ F'

e: 0 r'j ~:J r F' <::; ~::; rn a r"1

'.I;\

Member NDme Representing 11tle Voting

BFRTF<{.":,I"I:, Ji::\mf:~';::;

1·-IOFF·t"I,0)N, Lai-j-yB1(3U8:1 Co'/SOLIS:1 E1 :i.Sf.:~O

IvIOClF;:E, ,Jac k N.

I...E (-) F< Y:1 IVI ikE')BP'I1 I.... E:·V , kli:":\ J t1<11'-41:3, l<i~r"E~n

HUm3ClN, [iE."j- i::i I c:lGOODWYN, H .. Merrill

Ci ty of' I....ubbockCi t-..,' o'f L..ubbDckL..ubboc k CDU"'''ltyl....ubbock CountyE;DI··If.>,F'·r ~I D i ~::; t.. ~:)

FI"'lvJi:~ ..... ,0)u ':; t; in!3DHf."p·r .... (..":,u <:; t i'I"',80. Plains Assoc. of Govt'rp,C:D ..... L.ubh()c kTX Aeronautics CDmmission

Pl,";'::;t Cit·y· t/iri!Jr'D i ·C·. Tr· E'\'n~;:; "Co min :i. 5!::; i or·IE:.,.··Comri! :i. ~5:'::. i. c;; nF:")""·P:I. ar,.. F:'i""!(J i r"IE'Fr'

Llr"ban PJ.a.·r) Fnqr"{.~.,.- €", a f":':I. -::\"'-1n E' r"

r;: c:' (;.i i. 0 r", .:::( J. 8 u. P \,i r" "D i 'r' E'C to r'

><

.~.,

l\

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

\...Jot:I.'C·'l;J

XXX\"..A

:x::

X\ .."l\

V..-...

XXX><

XX><)(

X\t..0\

>::

1....1E~ \.' () j'"'

til c; ''y' () ','

IVla/'Co i'" p'j"-O TEin1"1 c:; 'y" Ci 'c'IV! c:, "/ co 'j'" F' j" co ''1'' E'~ in1"1 a yo 1'''

1'''1 a 'i/O r" F' r" () "I" S' Ii!

nc:,.'/O'i' F''i''u Tem1'1 ;::, \--' () i'"

r1a yo i" Pi'" () Temi'1a 'y"0 r"til i:i. 'yCi ( Pro 'T' (~ inIVIi:~. yD rCou,r-,'l;y JU.clC:,iE:·Di~:;t:i"ict Fi"iq,".Hep'('E'~:;E'r'itati \i£'.':

F~ E"~ P r" c·:·:· ::; E:' n t: <o::·t t i \i E~

Pr.·:,p r" e~o·e·n t c::j t i VE,'

e i t·y of' I' 1 c:lino,,,.,

Ci t,/ of P,I c:\i'ilOe i ty of F:c:I i. nbuj-(,:,!ei t" () 1:· E:cl i nburq, y

e i t·.." Dof H:i. C:!,::I I qoC~ :i. t,; o'f Hi d ..:~ I (;,:)0

C' i. ty oor 1"1c: ('i I I f:~n

e i tV' of 1'1c (:'i ], I E'r",e i ty of Ivl i ~:}s) i 01',

C" :1. ty of' r·1 i. ~:~ s:; i.., onC i. t" of Ph,::\)"')'"oy

Ci t 'y' of Phc:\r"j'"

C ], ,.. .- C:. .A:'~:3c:;. r"'1 ..}Llc:\'r'f-" :i ,

Representing Title

FHWA - Austin Urban Plan Eng:Lower Pio Grande Del Cuun'r("~CB .....

TX Aeronautics CommissionUI'lT{~ ..... F·t. \;Jor"th

C~ i t ...'1 CI 't" t;) i::"t "n J Lt ("::i. (i

HidC:llgo COI...I,·c·,tySDH&PT, Dist. 21State of Texas, Dist. 40State of Texas, Dist. 41State of Texas, Dist. 42

r-'I C(:,L L. E I'.J ..... P,...j (.) F:~ F;Hi 1ci ,",I 1cJ () r·1£::.· t 'C. 0 pol i t <;:In "l'j",'a, 1'''''0''. F:'l.::\ (',1"', i (I'] CO iTirii i '1'.: t. c·!'::":Jof:? I mpc''r'

j'/()9/CjI()

STUDY {-~nEA :DF'::l3IGN('ITE:D r'1PCi~

{-4F~E{~ PL{-:INr·JEf.:;

LEAF:::V, r-'I i kE~

eH{':,VE:;::~ ~ Ric c:1 j'" ci C)

VILLARREAL, RubyDeLa'v' I N(~ ~ Ruby'.,,1 I L.LAF:::RE{~L, r·1 i. kc'FRANZ, John DavidPEf:::EZ, TOiTla.s :Ji"·.BRP,ND, Dthcd"1UNT,0tLVCl, L<:0oRClDRIGUEZ, ArnulfoTOWNSEND, Pat Jr.(;3Pd::;:e I Pi, Vic: tor"SALINAS, Rubio O.GAne I {~, {-inton i. 0

GUAnJARDO, ArturomJI Z, Edt;'JarG(~RC I (~, (:.;. (;J.

7/09/90

~::;'rl...!DY f~F:;;E(~;

DEb I c::,t''./{'~TED f'1F'U:(.ir:~E:(~ pl...,riNNE:F': r.

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

1"1 I DL.,(,,~,I\ID""ODE~:;SPi

Permian Basin Regional Planning Commision\;4<:'1:1 t Di:!:I:I €:,'y

===:=::=~;::~=:;:::=~~:::=:::=:=:=:::::::;==:

Member Name Representing Title Voting

REI'"ID{.'ILL., RobE'Y" tRODF:;; I UUEZ!I J'a.i. mE:"FI~3HEF~, Ji:lnl'.jF( I r)HT, Du r" ~.i<." j'" cj

City o'f t'tlidlandCi ty o'f Dd(e':;~:;,;"

Leto';''' COUI",'i:.:'y'

1'1idl';:lncl Cou'nty

Cou'ne i ], rnEll"i

Co u 'ne i 1. rD,::1 j''',

COUi"lt'j.' ,]'Udi]E'

C: D rn fil :"i. ~::; ~::} i () tl (o:,~ r"

=:=====:=:::=::::;~===:==:==:=:

8teerinq Committee

u. S. C::onr;Jj" E'~,:,S

l...!. S" CC;.'i"lC;F'E'£;S;

F; 0::'Pi'" £2 ~.::' 0'~ n t ,:1 t i \/ E,'

~;:) t: ~~\ t: Eo:: ~::) (,::~ '1''', a, t: D ,'"

Stdt:",' ~~;E'ni1tD'c'

RE:' p (' 0'2 ~:::' f? l"i t i,1 t :i. v (0'

c:: (; () q ( £~ ~::; '::; in i:il 1"1

C; D rl (i Y- E'~ ~::; s; n\ ;'::l 'n

Do·rofDof

:::;tatE~

~~;ta tE'r:; t ":1 tf?:!

sta tE,'

CF~('iDD I CI<, "IOi1'1

MONTFORD, Johnf.SIlvIS, B i 11vJ(~Tf::: I l\lE;, Eiar'yCDI"IBE~:;'T!, LEI 'C' I" '';I

[;;1',1 I T H, 1..., i1ina 1-

l'i{.~r,jSEt,j, H<::l I" \If?:.''y'

HENNESSY, RichardKHOURY, t'IE\ j'" ~'Ja I",

'TUCI<ER, Bi:;.bb'y"I-'!E I'~DE F;: ~:; D1\1, B ','" Y <:1 nH,',H:;:Rr,L., E: i ] ],HUFFMAN, Marshal]t'JE:BD, Char"] (~?,:,;

Ci ty o'f t"li cj 1 Eli-,d

Cit ')/ C) 1" 1"1 i d 1. i:~, i'iCI

C:i. t '/ c, t' Del E':'~C:,s""

Cj, t,,.. of Uc!(;:":;£:;,:\Ector Cour",ty

t'1icll.,\l"',d C.;:.unty'HL:+lf."F'T, D i ':;:; t.. 6bDI"'lf"F'''j'', D:i. £,; t;.. {:;

D i ('.. Er"I(] r" / 'fr" ,:,,! ('I ..

Di',-" P:l,:~,'nn:l.r',cJ

Dir'" Pla(',rlingD:I. r"" Put;... t',Jo r k ~::;

CClmm i ':;~::; i 0 ('lEi'"

County E'ns) i nE'<,:;]'"'

D j, ,::,t:" E'nq i'l""'I£:,0:'('

F':I. <:':'1 ni"'l i i"liJ E::I"'CJ r" ..

\,~

..'\

xX

L.YUN, Hi...\l~Jh

L.EP,F(Y!I 1"'likf2CR{~WF'(:JF;:D, E'c'j"', i E'

CULLL.,(~I:;:, F(i)bE~I" tS 11"'18, Chai"'1 t?y13UUDt,JY1\1, Iv/E'l- r€01:1H(iF;:E:, t·J i 11:-;. U I"

FAA - ASW 601 Ft WorthFI-H"J('~ '"'' P,u~;t:i. nPermian Basin RPCb D1,,,1 ~>: F'r ,,'" {i u, ~:; t :i. nTP,CD ,,00, UclC''';S;i::lTX Aeronautics CommissionUI"1T{~ "'00 Ft. Wor th

PI c:: t i r', CJ D i '," t'::' c: to ('l...! roo b c:'t j'''j F' 1dr', E i'l 9 roo

E ;':: E' c:.. D i ..- F:,' c: t [I r"E: 1'''1 (J 'j- ''1'' 1'"0 El r'} ~::. ~:::) o}! ':::;

F\E'qio'f",al Die ..Dir"ec:tol'"Hp(;.! i Dr,a:l. D :i,}" •

=:=:=::===:=====:==:==~:===::

f.-J('~N (iNUEl...UCity of San Angelol,J,;:ll t Ba i 1€'Y

7/09/90

STUDY r:)RE{~:

DES I C3N{HED jvlF'U:AnE{,~ F'L{iNNEI::;::

Policy' COiTimi ttF..'E-:'

ABELL ~ Dc,nBF~m'JN, StephenEDWf~r·WS, T i. iii

F'UE:lH, D,::irlMCCULLOUGH, Walter GC(4FFEY, De 11::)\=.,\- tDot~l I 1\IGL.JE:::Z ~ B .. C ..

WEAVER, RobE)j- tLE{il:;:Y~ ~1i.k(;?

Bf.,)ILEY, WaJ. tJUNEL.,!... ~I Rob€~r· t!::-J I ~'1S , B illSI'1 I 'rH, L.ama ('

City of San AngeloCity o'f ~3an AllgeloCity of San AngeloCity of San AngeloSDH~"PT ~I D:i. f::; t.. ".7lOom C3r'f?E!r1 C()unty'rom l:3rE'er"l Cour",t'/

Concho Valley COGFHl·J() ,-, P,u s tinf:mH~:F'T - f.-'iu s t :i, nf::ltc:l tE' 0'1" 'TF:.'::,:as;Sta tf:? of 'rE?;-:a:;;

l..J .. ~; .. Conc;))"f-~s':::;

f.)f:;C"; t: C:i. t y' 1'Ilng ('C :i. t 'y' tIl co:, )"1 <:1 9 (,? j'"

1-"1,:,,';/0,('D j, i..'.. F' 1 i::\ )", n:i. nqD ,1, f:=', t.. Enq:i. '("E:\=.')"

C; D ITI rfj i "::;; ~5 :i. () r-~ f? ro(:0 infO i ~:;.~; i D riE~r-

E >: ee:: Ll t :i. \iF;' D:i. r' ..!..Jrbac, F' 1an En~.:j(­

l~~ ro (:-? <::\ F':I. \:;:'~ ri on E'~ ('

r;:r:.'p \- E'-=.;F:.'n t ,"'l t :i. \/c:!;::; t i:'~ t E' f:; E' )", '" t D r'Cong r" f? -:c; ':; ('it ,,=, r-I

xx:::(

:x:

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

SAN ANTONIO-BEXAR CO.Steering CommitteeEcldiE? t3I'''lafiE,~

COfilfTl it tE?F::Policy

~3TUDY Ah:EP,:DEf3 I GN(.YlED l"IFt) i

AFE{; PLANNEI::;::

)(

x

x><

v/\

Vl\

x

\'/\

)(

::<

1',1 07\ ''I' 0 ',-

CO i.l'i'H:: i 1 il'lt~'rl'ib C''j'"

CO unc: j, ], mc,'i'ilb(",'i'"Co u 'ne i J. ifi(;?iTIb F"rCour',c :'1. }, ii"!(':,'iiibE'I'-

Co u rH:: i 1. i'i'lI,;:.rnbE7.'i-

C3 E' n 1'0'1 "'H~ 'f" CCJ1 i;Dis",tcict Ene]r".C:) Eo) n c, '(' a ], ,v'd ',"', !::\ (J C~ '('

ria y'o (' ( C(.:o '(',Vi-::'j'" -:::iE; ;,C:;o rncn i ':3 ~::; :'!. 0 rOIE!r"

Comm i ~:;~::' :i, 0 '(',E~i"

D i r-. F",Jb.. 1;')0)''' k ':,.:;C(,)Ltnt''y' .Jucl(]E)

E ;.; ('::.' c" D i )'" E~ c: t 0 'j'"

l...I('ban P], i:',\'ni"'Ii-:':!i'"

(~,)''' E2 <:'~ F:I. i::\ n ';"', f? '('P:I. i:"l r", n i ','lq r::: ng)''' •~;:;p F~C: p)'" 0 d t1r',(;) '1'''

FF1(:jj,on<'\l Supv"Dir(,:;,'c::tor"

0.•C"

~:) c;l "f"1 (":, r'f '1:; D on i [;I

0'1" Elan {-in '1.'; 0 '('j i 0

Df ,'M"{.~ '1"', t 0 '1'"'1 i ()';::>d'C"1

o'f c" , P,r'iton i D,..Jdnof ,........... P,r)tor,i 0,::1<::\"

0'[' r··.. _ .._(.,) "'''1 t: 0 j"', :1, ()Octll

Bexar Co Council of MayorBE';'; a j- CO U, )"', t ''I'

Be;';"~i- COl...lnty

BE;:.;,;ar Cou'ntyI3E,?;.;a)'" County'C iVy'CityCityCj, tyCityCityCi t';,,; of ::3,:::I'li (.)r, ton i c:.r:~i:'~ndo 1ph F~E?g i onSDH&PT, Dist. 15VU:,

{; 1 i:':iiTiO P,)'" f?i:i CUUF 1",1 \,oJ (..:j -- {,) u ~::; t :1. ';"'j

SDH&PT - Planning Div.SDH&PT, Dist. 15San Antonio Devel. AgencyTACB - San AntonioTX Aeronautics Commissionrx Railroad CommissionUMTA - Ft. Worth

FRIESENHAHN, BruceEL. I ZONDD!, F'i:lU ILEE, RobE,?rt G.TOMASINI, Robert"',) I ct:::E:::;:~J, T o iii

CDCKF~ELl...~, L.. i 1 <3.

DUTt1EF~:, HE~ I enL{;BAT'T, ~~f~ i rMARTINEZ, WalterlHOMPSON, Robert~.JDL.F'F', NE,' 1 s;or1WEAVER, Thoiiias G.LOCKHART, Richard D.CoOF:::, f;Ja 'y'(l(~ 1"1.

1\!O'lZDI"')!, Pd :J. I I IL.I:::{-)RY, t"l i c h af?lSH{::)F IE!, Edd i E;:'

~::)EEWP,LD, Em i]' Ff'::'Er:;,:K I N~'; 1.... 0)- i s D.1-" E:: ;",) KE:, J' i in~.JI L.L.. J P,M::::>" C. (:,. II Clay II

:J('~lt1E~';, 1"1 i ch,,:\e],I"H~d::::E, ~.) i. 1bur"

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

SHERMAN-DENISONTexoma Council of GovernmentsEddie Shafie

=====:=====::=============

7/09/9()

STUDY AREA:DESIGNATED MPO:AREA PLANNER:

**** Policy Committee ****

Member Name

ANDREWS, JimCRUISE, LarryMC CRAW, ButchMYERS, Bobby

LEARY, MichaelJONES, KennethPACE, DonSHAFIE, EddieSPEAKMAN, Tom

Representing

City of DenisonCity of ShermanGrayson CountySDH&PT, Dist. 1

City of HoweFHWA - AustinSDH&PT, Dist. 1SDH&PT, Gist. 1SDH&PT, Planning Div.Texoma COG

Title

Asst. City MngrCity ManagerCommissionerDistrict Engr.

Urban Plan EngrDesign EngineerMgr Urban StudyArea PlannerTrans. Planner

Voting

xvA

vA

x

CUMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

·T"E:X (1F;:K(:,N('~1

Arkansas-Texas Council of Governments CARKTEX COG)Edd:i. E:, Sh<::lf i E'

7/09/':';0

~3·rl..JDY f~HE(4 zDE~:) I C.,NfHED 1"11::'0;(j;::([(:j PL(~I\INF:F;.:;

F'o 1 icy CD mm itt: f?€'~

I){~'v' IS, Dr··lar··j H.·rVL.E::F\, ~J:l 11 i ,::IfH

C(1PLL1lrJ, ~T C:lmf:::~:. 1'-1.1;.J I L..L I Plt"I~:;, ,JaITIE?:~:;

Cf~:C:H·JEL.L;, [) 1 in[{~ISI....EY, 1···lubE.'r- tFEh:03U~::;UN, BDbby

,Jf~h:'v'IS:1 ~Tohn

SHACKELFORD, GeorgeHUDDLESTON, MichaelI:::' Pi F~H (1 1\1, L'J :i. 1. t:,? yJESTEH, L. L. Jr.[;J{~DE, 1"10 n t E? G.DUL·JD :1T"r El v:I.~;DCl VJD:1 l\I,~ Yi"K?

TELFOHD, Barry B.

GDERI<E:1 Jaint'::,":;HULLi-Wm, Edd i E!

FAULKNER, Gene L.1.... E:: AI:~: Y, t·1 i c: h <::1. e: 1FAIRBROTHER, RichardCUELL.P,R, Fiob''2r t:LI::~P,F;:D, F;: i c h ,,'i r d

'v' I CI<E:R;::;, :JE'fi:·H(1 h:E, ~'J :i. 1 !::ii.H··

(~r k "'lr··I',,;a~; :DC.i·r(:~ir·k{::ln~;as; DU·rBDI--'J :i. e CC)Urit·/C:1. ty of N"'i·;::ihCity of T"exarkana, Ark.City of Texarkana, Ark.City of Texarkana, Ark.City of Texarkana, TexasCity of Texarkana, TexasCity of Texarkana, TexasCIty of Wake Villagef'li 11c,'"(· COiJntySDH&PT, Dist. 19SDH&Pf, Dist. 19State of Arkar}~;as

State of Arkansas~~:; t ;::, t E·? 0 f ·r Eo' ::.; i::1 ,,:;

PIF:KT"EX CUC;Ark. Dept. of AeronauticsArkansas Pollution ContrlF·{\(.·\FHW~ _.- f~I..).'5tin, TXFHWA - Little Rock, ArkSDH&PT, Planning Div.TPiCB .....

TX Aeronautics CommissionTexarkana Airport Auth.UMTA - Ft. Worth

·r :i. t 1 ;-::;.,

C:j--·,'i.,::,,'f, [:'Iar, DivDistr·'l.c::t Enqr·.Cou"nty' .Juclqe1"1,:'\ 'y' 0 r-Cit Y t~I{~1 nc.1(] ('?r·Counc i :I. fI1E,rn/::)f?r·1'1<:1yor·Coune: i I mE!ml::if~\r·

t/1<i:lyor·C i -1.": y t'1,::, rldq c·?r·t··1.:i:iyDr··County ,JudqE?Dis t r·· i c: t Enq·,- ..F'l ar-n-) i ni;:J r:::·nqr- ..F~ep r· E"i:;pr·, t D t.: 'I. \/I:.';!

H t ,::\ t f~~ ~::; E' n ,C":l t: 0 r·~-:;: c'p r· f.~ ',,:; E? r·, t <:, t i \1 (':.'

i:::: >; E:'C: u t :i. \!G? D i r·· ..D i r·C0C t:or·

Ui··hiE,r·, F'lar·, Er,gr·Divi,,:;ion E:r·lqr·Er··'lJ 1- Tr a r·I;:5 E;y~::;

(.2,i I-por-t 1'1nqr·Fi(:')(.:.! i Dr··,E,1 Adm i r·,.

"/\xXXXx

xv/ ...

x'I)i-..

:x

====~::===::~===:::::::=:==:::::~

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

TYLERCity of TylerEddie Shafie

7/09/90

STUDY AREA~

DESIGNATED MPO:AREA PLANNER:

**** Policy Committee ****

Member Name

GWYN, GaryPARKER, PaulREYNOLDS, Smith Jr.THOMAS, CharlieEVANS, James R.CRAIG, LarryKLINE, KennethHUDSON, David

SMYSER, TomLEARY, MikeSHAFIE, EddieLEARD, Richard

Representing

City of TylerCity of TylerCity of TylerCity of TylerSDH&PT, Dist. 10Smith CountySmith CountyState of Texas, Dist. 6

East Texas COGFHWA - AustinSDH&PT, Planning Div.TACB - Tyler

Title

City ManagerAsst City MngrMayorCity EngineerDistrict Engr.County JudgeCounty EngineerRepresentative

Reg. Devel CoodUrban Plan EngrArea PlannerRegional Supvr

Voting

xVA

"AxvA

XvA

x

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP7/09/90

STUDY AREA:DESIGNATED MPO~

AREA PLANNER:

VICTORIACity of VictoriaJoe Impey

Policy Committee ****

Member Name

ASHLEY, DeltonMENVILLE, EdwardMILLER, James J.BOHUSLAV, BenPETRUSEK, Reuben J.JONES, NormanTARGAC, FrankRHODES, Patrick

KENNEDY, PatrickIMPEY, JoeCOBLER, Harold

Representing

City of VictoriaCity of VictoriaCity of VictoriaCity of VictoriaSDH&PT, Dist. 13SDH&PT, Dist. 13Victoria CountyVictoria CountyVictoria County Airport

Golden Crescent RPCSDH&PT - Planning Div.Victoria Cham. of Comm.

Title

CouncilmemberCouncilmemberDir. of Engr.City ManagerDistrict Engr.Resident Engr.County JudgeCommissionerAirport Mngr.

Executive Dir.Area PlanerTrans. Chairman

Voting

xvA

xXXXXvA

7/09/90

bTUDY (-~I::;:E{~:

DEF:; I GW)TED 1"'1F'0:(".iHE:P, PL"ti~-.lI\IE:P:

DUI\IF:;L..P,P, ~:;E\m

llJ(JDDriFm, D~?'nn i s~:) I t"IUN~), B i 11 ''1'

CFdJTH, L..€HT YH{lh:F~I~3DI\~~1 ,Joh ....·,HfJl..2E:, H~":Il"'r"y

McGLDSSUN, Sam JackF'i:~TT I LLO, F~. D.NDFd"JUClD, !"Iar'v i nrXiV I ~3, L··J a 'tTl (:?

LE:\r.) I F:-;, JimP 1(::::I<TT'f, 1< i r' b'y"

l...E{~,HY, l'1i.chaE,lD{:,VI~:), HuqhI!"IF'EY, :JoE'Em.J{~Fmb, Chl::""?tT{."lYL.OF-~:, t'l. (-i.

DE:Nl'UN, Bet tyFUL.·rUN, Euge''''''t'"L.EJ~CH, 1'1a'''''v:1 nUF~IBE~I BIas;CL.E:VEL.AND, Curtis

COMMITTEE ME:MBEHSHIP

L·,IACUCi t·y· clf ~,J;:;,c::()

:.TO(7? Impel

F'olic::y

Cit·". of' [;(::;.11 inE! 21. dCi t;y o'f 1···IF'!v~:i. t:tCit'."!' of Pobin~:;Ci""',

Cit''!" of' \;JacDC;ity' o·f v·J~·i:\C:o

Ci ty o'f \;J,:'ICDCi ty o'f l·J,-::,coCi ty of l\lacDCi t·)! of l·Jooclv,Ji:":Iy~"lc:C 1 €~'("Jr'lan COUl""",ty1'1ee 1 f:;·(·,n;::\·(j COI...I(·,tySDH~PT, Dist. 9

FHi,..Jri ..." P,u s:; t i ('1

Heart of Texas COGSDH~PT - Planning Div.btate of Texas, Dlst. 9State of" l"exas~ Distn 55State of Texas, Dlst. 56Tf.:,CB .....U.S. Congress, 11th Dist.l...WIT{:.1 ..... Ft. t.-,IO(· tl"l

Waeo Chamber of Commerce

CDU(',C i 1.m'?::"iflbE!r"Cit ./ t·1..::\ n i::i (J (,:,2"1­

t"1..::( \' () r"Cit '..,..' E nq :1. ·nC:'F:·r·C 'i. t.: 'y' t··l i:\ r", E'I q E'r'F' 1. ,:'I "1""', C: Dff, rn :i. ':5 ",. i () 'n

I....'E'l Y C; .... F' r" () "' E' rnn'::I\iDl"·

Cit; ./ !"I '::~. "l""i E\ <::.1 E! (

C;Offiifl i '~::.~::; i Oi"ic-::ar"

[:0 fniTt:t S:~.-::::. i Dr',E'f"

Di,,:;tr'jc::t FnU"I""·.

l...I"C' h 2'1 ',"', F' 1 ,:~ n E ";""', (J"C'E ;.; t:-::'C '..l t i. Vi':' D i "c.

{:~,"("' F! ,,:( F']' ii:\ "1""', r"1 E? ',-

F~f.'jp (. C'::::· i,:! r"1 t..:~ t i VE~F:E'pr··C"·:::;(::.·:'n!:.:i:".t i VF.."

C: D (", CJ r- l:.~i ~::; S ffl a nUr" b..:~ r", F':I. anr'IE:'r'

rr" <'"'. ns" Ch C~. i r iT"l<J r',

1 I .•..1.. :. ..., _..\It.' I, J. lit:!

;.(

><

><

><

><

xxXXXXXV1\

Mayo.,­~/Ii~yor"

Ci ty Ma."'''i <::1 g E:'r'Ur'ban Plc:,n Fn~~t·

Distr"ict Engr.P,r" Pi:':\ f':']. iilril"i(;.?j"·

~3tiil t;p E;en<:l torPi=:pr"E'~";E~nt,,~t i VP

F~:f:"Pr' c':::~:;f!.'n t: ii t i \if:!!

p(:~(] i 01'''1",,1 D i r" •D i r' PC: t D '1-

{:\c t.. D :i. r'" Tr' ;::\ ns;

Co ng r" e~.::;s;m",\ n

D i '('. Pub. ~'Jo .(. k Si

1'1a"/(:'''-Dir·. Plannin<;JD i ',-. T .,- <", f / T r" <,:\ n ~:;:.

E ;.( E' c:. D i '(. e c t c~ ',­[)('::1siq'n Er·'~Jr.

r;:Dl.J / Tr' ii"f E'nqr'Comm i ~:;<::; i or"":'?i"

Comm it tE:E-

====:================

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Cit Y o'f l..."'l k E:'~'. i (j E·:-

City of Pleasent ValleyCity of Wichita FallsF~'I"'IVJA - i~~US tinSDH&PT, Dist. 3SDH&PT, Planning DIV.StatE~ c)f "rE-;';.'::lS

E;t,,~ tE~ ()f Te:·;<::t~:;

TACB - Wichita FallsTX Dept. of AviationTX Railroad CommissionU.S. CO'nClrE!~,~::>

City of Wichita FallsCity of Wichita FallsCity of Wichita FallsCity of Wichita FallsNortex Reg. Plan. Comm ..SDH~>:PT, D i~::; t ~::J

SDI···It.:PT, Dis t :::JVJic:hit;::\ County

~J I CH I T{~, F{~L..I.... ~3City of Wichita FallsE:ckl i ("} 81""2,f i E'

b"TlJDV AF~FA:

DEb I EiN{·~ 'fED 11PU:(iRE(:i PL(~I'.It-JEr~:

7/09/90

BUI\INETT, UE~Ctr (.;le

I....r.,/"I, 1'1 i c h ,:":,E,-lMC KINNEV, RogerF'P,F(f:::EF~, Bobl·J I I.... DE , DE'nn i,,:;CANTRELL, Dale C.PRESTUt-J, Bruce J.Fif~:EE:F;:, H.. C.

HI CI<:E'{, LeE:L. I T"Tl.. E, L£~onf •I:J,EF:Z I ~'~A, JimI....EPd::;'{, 1'1 i ch<:H? IbTACKS, Jimmy L.SHP,FIE, EddiE~

C{~I::;:RTKEF~ , t3t E'phE:-r',FINNELL, Charlesb?)'VIN, .Joh·nB(·)F~E{E:I::;:, DE'!::-I r' <:"-

l·JII....KINEl, CIe-IYWENDL.ANDT, WalterSP,FW{~.,LI US, 8 i 11

APPENDIX E

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING DIVISION

URBAN PLANNING AREAS

Urban Planning Areas, by District

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING DIVISION

AREA 1 E. ShafieUrban Area Planner

1066 0 0 03 AREA 2 Walt Baileyo 0 0 0 0

Urban Area Planner

AREA 3 Joe N. Impey

Urban Area Planner

APPENDIX F

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ONURBAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

IN TEXAS

1. WHEN AND WHY WERE STYLIZED URBAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIES INSTITUTED?

In accordance with the 1962 Federal Aid Highway Act 23, U.S.C. 134 and Section8 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, urbanized areas were requiredto have a continuing, cooperative and comprehensive transportation planningprocess in order to receive Federal-Aid Highway funds or Urban MassTransportation funds. This process, known as the 3-C Planning Process, aids inthe creation of plans and programs consistant with the development of eachurbanized area.

2. WHO AND WHAT IS THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO)?

The 1973 Federal-Aid Highway Act and the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964assured the involvement of the local entities in highway planning in urbanizedareas throughout the country. It required the governor of each state todesignate a metropolitan planning organization for each urbanized area.Principal elected officials of general purpose local governments must be repre­sented on the MPO, but the structure of each MPO is established by agreementbetween the Governor and these local governments.

The MPO is the organization which shares responsibility with the State forcarrying out the 3-C planning process and is the forum for cooperativetransportation decision making in the urban transportation planning process.

3. WHAT IS THE MAKEUP OF THE MPO IN TEXAS URBANIZED AREAS?

The MPO's in urbanized areas of Texas vary from local Councils of Government,the major local cities, the Steering Committee, or the Policy AdvisoryCommittee.

4. WHO MAKES THE DECISION AS TO WHO IS TO BE DESIGNATED THE MPO?

The local cities and counties in each urbanized areas, in coordination with theGovernor, make the decision as to the designation of the area MPO.

5. WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS THAT ARE USED BY THE MPO FOR PLANNING?AMOUNT ANNUALLY? WHO FURNISHES MATCH?

Federal funds referred to as PL 112 funds are set aside from Federal AidHighway funds for each MPO to use in carrying out the urban transportationplanning for that area. These funds require a 15% local match, which is fur­nished, in kind, by the State Department of Highways and Public Transportation.The Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA), Section 8 &9 funds arealso used for planning.

6. WHO USES THESE FUNDS?

This is a local determination, by the MPO.

7. WHO DEVELOPS THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN?

The Transportation Plan is to be developed by the MPO in coordination withthe local governmental entities and SDHPT. This is most necessary since noproject will be developed unless it is desired by the effected entity. Itmust have final approval of the MPO.

8. WHO DECIDES THE LIMITS OF THE AREA TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PLAN?

The area to be included in the plan is part of an agreement between the localgovernment and the SDHPT.

9. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE STUDY AREA, THE URBAN AREA AND THE URBANIZEDAREA?

The Study Area is the area for which the Metropolitan Planning Organization(MPO) develops a long range transportation plan. As a minimum, it covers theurbanized area, as designated by the Bureau of Census, and the area likely tobe urbanized in the period covered by the long-range element of the transpor­tation plan.

The urban area is that area which encompasses the entire urbanized area asdesignated by the Bureau of Census plus that adjacent area as agreed upon bylocal officials in cooperation with the State. (This is the area in which pro­jects must be included in the TIP/AE to be eligible for certain Federal AidHighway and Urban Mass Transportation Administration funds).

The urbanized area is the area designated by the Bureau of Census each 10 yearsafter the census has been compiled. It must as a minimum include all of thecity limits. It is determined beyond the city limits by the density of popu­lation.

10. WHAT EFFECT DOES ENLARGING THE URBAN AREA HAVE ON FEDERAL AID HIGHWAY FUNDSFOR PROJECTS?

The enlargement of the Urban Area effects the ability to use certain FederalAid Highway funds on highways within the urban area limits. Federal AidUrban funds can be used only within the urban area limits and Federal AidSecondary funds cannot be spent within those limits. The Federal Aid UrbanSystem funds are very limited and Federal Aid Secondary funds are a majorsource of highway funds. (Currently, the Combined Roadway Program (CPR) ren­ders this point moot. The CPR is only a demonstration program at this time.)

11. WHAT IS THE UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM (UPWP)?

The Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) is an annual outline for the use ofthe PL 112 and the UMTA Section 8 funds. This document must be approved bythe MPO and submitted to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and theUrban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) for review and approvalbefore the Federal Planning funds become available.

12. WHAT IS THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP)?

As a minimum, the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) consists of alisting of projects or capital improvements from the transportaiton plan thatare within the Urban Limits and are recommended for Federal funding duringthe next 3 to 5 years.

13. WHAT IS THE ANNUAL ELEMENT (AE)?

The Annual Element consists of a listing of projects or capital improvementsanticipated to begin during the next Federal fiscal year.

14. HOW IS THE TIP/AE DEVELOPED?

The TIP/AE is a compilation of approved projects submitted to the study coor­dinator by implementing agencies.

15. WHAT PROJECTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE IN THE MPO APPROVED TIP/AE TO RECEIVEFEDERAL FUNDS?

Only those projects that are within the urban area limits are required to bein the TIP/AE approved by the MPO before they can receive Federal funds.Even within the urban area projects which are for resurfacing, restoration,rehabilitation, reconstruction (4R), or highway safety improvements, andwhich will not alter the functional traffic capacity or capability of thefacility being improved may be excluded from the TIP/AE by agreement betweenthe State and the MPO. In most areas in Texas this agreement has been exe­cuted in order that safety, rehabilitation and restoration projects will notbe del ayed.

16. WHAT IS THE CERTIFICATION STATEMENT?

At the time the TIP/AE is submitted to the Federal Highway Administration,the MPO and the State certify that the planning process is being carried onin conformance with all applicable Federal requirements. This certificationmust be submitted with the TIP/AE to obtain Federal approval.

17. WHO DECIDES THE SOURCE OF HIGHWAY FUNDS THAT WILL BE USED ON A PROJECT?

On highway projects, the source of the funds for the highway project isdecided by SDHPT within applicable federal requirements.

18. DO WE LOSE ANY FEDERAL FUNDS WHEN WE DON'T USE THEM ON A HIGHWAY PROJECT?

When a decision is made by SDHPT to use all State funds on a project nofederal funds are lost. Federal funds represent only a portion of tne fundsspent by SDHPT for highway construction.

19. WHY ARE PROJECTS NOT IN THE URBAN LIMITS OR THAT ARE NOT TO BE FEDERALLYFUNDED INCLUDE IN THE PLAN, TIP AND AE?

Other projects in the planning area may be included in the TIP!AE for infor­mational purposes. This is a means by which anyone can see how the LongRange Transportation Plan is developing and is a means of keeping all electedofficials and the public informed of project planning.

20. IF A PROJECT IS ADDED TO THE PLAN, THE TIP AND THE AE BY THE MPO, DOES THISMEAN IT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED?

No, the MPO, by a majority vote, can add a project to the TIP/AE andTransportation Plan. In the case of a highway project, the project mustfirst be approved by the State Highway and Public Transportation Commissionbefore State or Federal funds could be used for construction.

21. WHO HAS THE TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR DEVELOPING THE DESIGN OF A PROJECT?

The design of a highway project is entirely the responsibility of registeredprofessional engineers whether employed by SDHPT or as a consultant. Thisdesign does take into account environmental, social, and economic concerns aswell as input from public meetings and public hearings.

22. WHAT PART DOES THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION HAVE IN THE PLANNINGPROCESS?

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is responsible for seeing that theStates are meeting all of the applicable requirements in the planning processwhen Federal Aid Highway funds are to be used. They must also approve theUPWP and the TIP/AE each year.

23. IS THERE ANY REQUIREMENT, FEDERAL OR STATE, THAT REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING OFTHE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OR ANNUALELEMENT?

There are no Federal or State requirements for a public hearing of theTransportation Plan, TIP or AE. Public hearings may be required at a certainstage of the individual Federally funded project.

24. ARE ALL MEETINGS OF THE MPO REQUIRED TO MEET THE STATE OPEN MEETING LAWREQUIREMENTS?

Yes, the courts have recently ruled that the policy committee must meet therequirements of the Texas Open Meeting Law.