Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRVMPO Boundary Expansion CIT OF -ASHI.AND Council Memo Subject: Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO Boundary Expansion Dept: Public Works Department Date: November 6, 2.002 - Study Session Paula Brown~ Submitted By: Brian Almqu~''~gf~.~ Approved By: Synopsis: The 2000 census codified and subsequently redefined urban areas. As such, the existing "l~ledford" urbanized area grew and now extends to Ashland and Jacksonville to be designated as a Tr~nsportation Management Area (TMA). Our expanded urbanized area (UZA) has grown to be 128,780 '2000 census figures) ~n population. Based upon federal regulations, the new UZA designation requires hat the current Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO) expand it's boundaries to em er the entire area that is anticipated to become urbanized within the next 20 years. This allows transportatior~ planning to be accomplished ~n total, and ~ncludes the ak quality determinations for our area. It ~s the MP~3's policy to develop continuing, cooperative and comprehensive transportation planning processes that ;onsider all transportation modes that support the regional system. Formal designation of the revised h ~undaries and new MPO boundaries is recommended by the MPO Policy Committee, approved by the GOvernor then accepted by the Federal H~ghway Association (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Authority (?TA) Recommendation: Th~s is an ~nformafional item only. The Rogue Valley Council of Governments is the desi~:nated support arm for the RVMPO and RVCOG staff will make a presentation to the City Council. Decisions and actual approvals will come back to Council at a later time. Fiscal Impact: There are two levels of fiscal impact. The first is the "Discretionary" STP (Surface Tramp xtation Program) Funds. The State splits its federally allocated STP funds with all MPOs and cities with po~ flations over 5,000. For the past several years, Ashland has been eligible for over $100,000 a year ~n S'IP funds. Typically Coune~! would authorize a fund exchange for these funds so that the dollars couh go to a variety of City street projects. In the past these funds came directly to the City of Ashland to fund eligible projects (such ts Sherman and Union Streets, and recently the new Water Street Bridge). Now, as a part of a larger MPO Ashland would compete internally for these funds. The MPO's current STP Funding Policy states that '...~he STP dollars will be rotated through the MPOjurisdictions as appropriate..." i This policy statement does not seem to be well defined and perhaps there should be specifi~ criteria developed for worthy projects. Perhaps the State or FHWA has guidelines for the distribu!ion of these funds CC MPO Coordination SS 6Nov02.doc ~ Panel o~2 F&~ and a standard set of criteria for project funding. Rotating project dollars does not provide a strong sense of project merit. Staff understands that the MPO has already allocated the next 10 years worth of STP dollars. If this is the case, then it would seem appropriate to allocate individual amounts to new cities joining the MPO for the same amount of time. In any event, STP allocations and funding levels for the new members' needs to be reviewed and better managed. In addition to the STP funds, the City of Ashland will be required to pay MPO membership dues to RVCOG. Currently the RVCOG charges membership dues dependent upon population. The 2001-02 dues were a total of $19,261 with Medford paying $8,465 and Jackson County paying $3,265. The remaining dues were split between RVTD, Central Point and Phoenix. It is anticipated that the City of Ashland would pay a similar amount as the County for the annual MPO membership service dues to the RVCOG. RVCOG is responsible to provide transportation planning, transportation project planning and implementation, transportation modeling with ODOT, public involvement and air quality conformity determination. BackgroUnd: The expansiOn of the MPO boundaries has been anticipated for the past several years. Even so, there are still many unknowns as the organization changes. The primary concerns stem from dollars and equality, which are very "normal" under the circumstances. Each agency will need to process the changes and feel comfortable that their individual needs are taken into account as these policies are rewritten. The MPO Policy Committee is considering granting voting status to incoming member cities prior to formal recognition of the new organization. This would help significantly in the progress toward a good working relationship and in the establishment of new criteria and policy for funding transportation projects. Attached is a summary of issues prepared by the RVCOG. Their Transportation Manager will be here to make a presentation at the Study Session. CC MPO Coordination SS 6Nov02.doc bt ~}¢ ;UE VALI~EY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION BOUNDARY EXPANSION REFERENCE MATERIALS GUST 8 02 l' ,20 RVMPO Boundary Expansion Information Thursday, August 08, 2002 ~ ..........Page 2 1. BACKGROUND A. PURPOSE The purpose of this document is to provide reference materials to the new and existing members of the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO) on the different aspects of the RVMPO and the boundary expansion. The document also provides information on the effects that the boundary expansion will have on new members. Undoubtedly, new MPO members have many questions about the metropolitan planning process and how it will affect their respective jurisdictions. Questions about transportation funds, planning requirements and processes need to be addr~sed. Similarly, existing MPO members have questions about how the boundary expansion will aff~t the status quo. In sununary, this document attempts to outline and discuss these issues so that the new and existing MPO members have a better understanding of the MPO expansion: B. URBANIZED AREAS AND METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS (MPOs) What is an urbanized area CLIZA)? An UZA is a statistical geographic entity defined by the Census Bureau, consisting of a central core and adjacent densely settled territory that together contain at least 50,000 people, generally with an overall population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile. Federal transportation planning regulations require that all UZAs be located within a metropolitan planning organization (MPO). The governing authorities for the formation and/or modification of a IV[PO are Title 23, Section 134(b), United States Code, Part 23, Sections 450.306 and 310, Code of Federal Regulations. The listing of UZAs is used by the U.S. Department of Transportation to identify areas qualifying as Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). For example, the 2000 Census resulted in the addition of 76 new MPOs (including Corvallis and Bend). Medford became an UZA based on the 1980 Census. At that time, the UZA included the cities of Medford and Central Point. The Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO) was formed in 1981 with membership including; Medford, Central Point, Jackson County, RVTD and ODOT. Phoenix was added to the UZA in 1990 and also became a member of the MPO. In the Federal Register, published on May 1, 2002, the Census Bureau added Ashland, Talent, and Jacksonville to the Medford UZA. The Medford UZA now includes; Ashland, Talent, Phoenix, Jacksonville, Medford, Central Point and the unincorporated community of White City (see Figure 1). Based on the 2000 Census, the population of the Medford UZA is now 128,780. The addition of these jurisdictions to the Medford UZA requires that the MPO boundaries be expanded. C. MPO BOUNDARY CHANGES RESULTING FROM THE 2000 CENSUS The RVMPO fulfills the federal requirements for a continuing, comprehensive, and cooperative transportation planning process in the Medford UZA. It is now the obligation of the RVMPO to expand the MPO boundary based on the new federally-revised urbanized area boundary. The planning area boundaries must include the existing urbanized area and extend to the contiguous area expected to become urbanized within the next 20 years. Federal law RVMPO Boundary Expansion Information Page 3 Thursdny, August 08, 2002 2005). The MPO and the Governor are ~m~.t.o.r ap~,~,m~_m_~..~ .... a,,~ ,,~mment 23 Once approved, the boundaries are pwvided to FttWA ano r t~ tu~ ~,,~,~ ,~-, W' -- 4 O, OS id). The MPO Policy Committee invited representatives.of Ashland, Talent, Jacksonv~.lle and Eagle Point~ to beEin attending MPO Policy Committee and Technical Advisory '.ommittee meetings beginning in September 2002 to participate in MPO expansion discussit ns. At the September meeting, there will be discussions on new bylaws 23 CFR 450.306 (k) and MPO staff will present an overview of the MPO - how it functions, what its mandates n ad responsibilities are, an outline of the expansion st~ps, and what the recently comp leted Regional Transportation Plan will mean for the MPO. 2. MPO BOUNDARY EXPANSION A. PROPOSED STEPS TO EXrAr~O rm~ MPO The following list shows the proposed work tasks for ©xp~_~___~_e_. ~MP_O. Aul~st 2002 with Task 8 ending in July 2004. See Table 4, Wbrk Tasks Timdlae, for more d~mils. 1. Develop Work Plan/Timeline & Budget A. TAC Review/Recommendation B. Policy Committee R~,-view/Approval 2. RepOrt on MPO F. xp~on- How New Members are Affected A. TAC Review and Discussion B. Policy Committee Review and Discussion 3. MPO Boundary Exp~ion Staps (Polioy Committee Discussions) A. Revis~ Bylaws B. Eatab~ New Boundary C. Develop Agreements D. MPO Policy Committee Approval E. Governor's Approval 4: Revise Model 8. MPO Polioy Approval of RTP, TIP, AQCD ~ Eagle P,,int is not within the UZA and therefore is not require~ to bo included in the new metropo~tan p!anni~... · area. ~'o~'~ver, the MPO Policy Committee feeis that it makes se,, fi~..m.a re~mtlAi i I Eagle Point to consider membership in the MPO because it is the only city m the Qunlit~ am~ (AQMA) tlmt is not in the MPO. RVMPO Boundary Expansion Information Thursday, August 08, 2002 Page 4 3. MPO PLANNING RRQUII~MR~S A. G~qgRAL MPO I~QUm~M~qTS As ~ d~si~at~ ~O for ~ M~ford UZA sinc~ 1981, RVCOG is r~sponsible for compl~on of a n~ber of ~ relatM to f~eml ff~spoRafion piing ~d pro~~ing r~uir~eng. ~e ~ks gently fall in to ~e following work elements: Travel Domed M~ol~g ~d Da~ M~t~c~ ~ng R~ge Pl~g T~cal Assis~ce Tr~oRation Proj~t Pro~~~g ~d ~plemenmtion Public ~volvem~t ~r Quali~ Co~o~ity ~tergove~en~ C~rdination B. ~BE~L T~SPORTATION PLANNING ~QUI~MENTS ~ F~~ ~way Act of 1973 os~fish~ law ~at r~~ ~ fo~ation of~Os ~~ go~ ~& ~flafiom ovg 50,~ ~ ordor for s~~ ~~fion proj~g to be eli~ble for f~ ~way T~t F~d doR~. ~e M~o~ ~~ g~ d~i~atM ~ a Me~li~ Smfisfi~ ~ ~SA) b~M on ~e 1980 Cema. ~e Ro~e V~ey ~oil of ~vo~m~ ~VCOG) w~ d~i~at~ by ~o ~vomor of~o S~o of ~go~ ~ ~o Mo~fi~ Pl~g ~g~fion on ~uly 26, 1982. ~ RVCOG Bogd of D~tom delegat~ re~ibifi~ of~O ~ofio~ to &e ~O Pofiey ~mmiR~ w~eh ~elud~ m~b~ ~m; damon ~, ~al Point, M~ford, Ph~, R~ V~I~ Tra~pogation D~ct ~~), ~d ~egon Depa~t of ~a~gagon (ODOr. ~ ~O is ~~ible for ~ndu~g a ~n~& ~p~ve, ~d ~mpreh~ive ~mfion plug p~s for &e g~ of ~M~& Tfl~g J~n~e, ~~ Po~g M~o~ Pho~ ~d ~te Ci~. ~o ~O m~t pl~ for ~o mov~mt of~ p~plo ~d g~ ~~ ig ~~~ by fll m~ of ~vel - ~clu~g ~wa~, pubfic ~mfio~ bicycle, ~d p~~~. ~ ~O is'flso ~o~ible for ~~g ~t ~mfion pmj~g do not ~v~ely ~t ~ q~. ~e Ro~e V~ley ~ ~o ~ff~t ~ q~ non-a~mt ~. M~o~ U~ ~~ Bo~~ is &e bo~~ for ~n mo~de (CO), ~d M~o~-~M~d ~ ~~ M~t~~ ~a (AQ~) is d~i~~ for m~ ffM~0 (s~ Fi~e 1). ~e Mo~fi~ T~~on I~mv~ent ~~) ~d Re~on~ T~~fion PI~ ~) m~t d~om~to ~o~~ r~uiremen~ of ~e F~eml Cle~ ~ Act ~en~en~ (C~) ~d ~e State Co~o~ Rule. F~eml le~slation for ~e ~O c~ be s~~ ~ follows: · Develop ~d main~in a Re~onal TraCtion PI~ ~TP) RVMPO Boundary Expansion Information ...... Page 5 Thursday, August 08, 2002 Every three years, develop and maintain a Transportation ImproVement P gram · Perform regional air quality conformity analyses for carbon monoxide (cO) and particulate matter (PM~0) · Coordinate transportation decisions among local jurisdictions, state agencies, and area transit operators · Develop an annual work prograxn · House staff and a regional travel demand model for the purposes of assessing, planning, and coordinating regional travel demand impacts C. MPO COMMITTEES The MPO is staffed by the Rogue Valley Council of Governments. The MPO is Served by: Public Advisory Council (PAC) The PAC consists of appointed citizens who make rcx~ommendations to the MPO from the .... public's perspective on proposed long-range transportation plans, project plans, I ciorities for state and federal funding and other transportation issues. The PAC will nc~d to ! ~ expanded to include citizen r~~t~ves from Ashland, Talent, Jacksonville and Eagle l?oint (should they decide to join the MPO). Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Tho TAC is responsible for advising the MPO Policy Committee on technical m ~tters. The TAC includes staff members from Modford, Central Point, Phoenix, Jackson Co mty, RVTD, ODOT, the Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), the Department of I~nd Conservation and Development (DLCD), and the Federal Highway Adminislx~ on (FHWA). The TAC will need to be expanded to include mit from Ashland, Talent, Jacl~ nville and Eagle Point (should they decide to join the MPO). lVl~O Policy Committee MPO member jurisdictions including; Meoxorck ~.,~z~___um r~.-,,_ ,._-~__, _ Re · Valley Transportation District, an · . . . gu · ' e decide to om the 1V. PO) will be Ashland, Talent, Jacksonville and Eagle Point (should th y J represented on the Policy Committee. The Policy Committee considers recom~ zendations from the PAC and TAC and makes final decisions on all MPO matters. D. STATE OF OREGON TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE (TPR) REQUIRE~V, '~ENTS FOR JURiSDiCTIONS wrrmN MPOs - CHAPTER 660 DIVISION 12 The TPR Chapter 660, Division 12 specifies requirements for jurisdictions witch MPO areas. Below is an outline of the requirements. RVMPO Boundary Expansion Information Thursday, August 0g, 2002 Page 6 1. Same requirements as jurisdictions over 25,000 outside MPO areas, plus 2. Adopt .the following additional element in the transportation system plan: 1. A parking plan intended to achieve a 10% reduction in the number of parking spaces per capita over the planning period OAR 660-012-0045(5)©. 3. Design the transportation plan to achieve the following objectives for reducing automobile vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita OAR 660-012-0035(4): 1. In MPO areas of less than 1 million population, a 5% reduction within 20 years of the adoption ora plan as required by OAR 660-012-0055(1); or 2. Develop Alternative Measures- 660-12-0035(5) (see Table 1) 3. Adopt Integrated Land Use and Transportation Plan 660-12-0035(5)© RVMPO Alternative Measures in Place of VMT Reduction Standard Thc Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO) adopted Alternative Measures (OAR 666-12-0035 (5)) in place of the VMT reduction standard (OAR 666-12- 0035 (4)), on September 6, 2001, to demonstrate progress in achieving reduced automobile reliance. The Land Conservation Development Commission approved the standards on December 13, 2001. Computer modeling shows that thc Rogue Valley Rcgional Transportation Plan (RVRTP) is expected to result in an increase in VMT per capita Pursuant to the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) (OAR 660-12-0000) Section 0035 (5) ©, "If a plan using an alternative standard approved by thc LCDC is expected to result in an increase in VMT per capita, then thc cities and counties in the metropolitan area shall prepare and adopt an integrated land use and transportation plan. The plan shall be prepared in coordination with the MPO and adopted within three (3) years of the approval of the alternative standard." Requirement to Adopt Integrated Land Use and Transportation Plans Since the RVMPO is using alternative measures and VMT is expected to increase, then the cities of Ashland, Talent, Jacksonville, Medford, Central Point and Phoenix, and Jackson County, must prepare and adopt integrated land use and transportation plans (ILUT) by December 13, 2004. In addition to what is required by the TPR, ILUT plans can benefit the region by reducing reliance on the automobile, which is one of the key RVRTP strategies. The ILUT plans will be a local initiative with input from the public and local jurisdictions. The RVMPO has a technical assistance grant from the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) to provide the necessary assistance to the member jurisdictions with the development of these plans. It is anticipated that this work will take up t° two and a half RVMPO Boundary Expansion Information ~ ...... ~ - Page 7 Thursday, Augtmt 08, 2002 (2 ~A) years to complete. Phase I of the ILUT Plan (July 2002- June 2003), usin~ DLCD technical a~sistance grant funds, will focus on development of a work program, bu~lget critical path schedule, and initiation of tasks included in the work program (to be identifiegt during work program development). Phase 2 (July 2003 - December 2004) will focus on completion and jurisdiction adoption of the ILUT plans (no funding identified at this time for :his work). The clements of an ILUT include: a) Changes to land use, b) Transportation demand management (TDM), c) Pricing strategics, and d) Major improvements policies. Table 1 R VMPO Alternative Measures for TPR Compliance ~ · i. 2020 deay trips taken ~ dally trips ~ daily taps walking (non-motorO. ed) modes. * n from.best available data ~rmit: 1.2 1.6 tansit: [ 2.2 ~ransit:3.0 model output and/or ike/ped: 6.4 6.6 :gk : 9.8 t~ike/ped: t& Dwellag ~ estimates are Ihat 12% of 12% 20% 30% 4 % 50°1o ~v'alk to 30-min. , o~ RVTD transit routes. ._~ ~ c~,~, ,~ ..~, .. ~,t ~,~ o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ % o0% ~..-,, ~ '""'"*'~ ~'"" ~ , Pt~easum 4: through GI$ nmpping. + % Colleglms a~l ~ are that 46% of 47% 50% 56% % 75% idedal~ in TOO and arterials in TOD areas i I, feasum 5: by traddng building 41% 49% % Mtxml-use Due - Itm ratio between new Dus in 0% 9% 26% ~ · 6:. from annual mnployment :~6 ~ Mixed-use from Slate - raprammte Ihe ratio 0% 9% 23% % 44% ~mnt in new new employment in TODs over total 7: proiecss. $2.5 adternMive shown repremmt ~ of the N/A $950,000 Million Mi_~ Million I'ransportation estimated aooumulation of Funding RVMPO Boundary Expansion Information Thursday, August 08, 2002 Page 8 4. TRANSPORTATION FUNDING A. CURRENT ODOT SMALL CITY ALLOTMENT PROGRAM POLICY The SCA program is listed in ORS 366.805 which basically states that any city with population of 5,000 or less is eligible to participate in the program regardless of whether it is within a MPO boundary. The program was set up to help small cities with their transportation system. Eagle Point will be eligible for a STP allocation next year (October 2002) when ODOT will again be using the PSU population numbers and not the US Census numbers assuming that PSU will give Eagle Point a population greater than 5,000. B. C~JRRENT ODOT SVRFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP) ALLOCATION FOR. URBANIZED AREAS (UZAS) The State of Oregon shares the annual federal STP allocation with all incorporated cities over 5,000 population and all counties. The Federal Highway Administration makes a separate STP allocation for UZAs greater than 200,000 in population. These Urban Areas are classified as "Transportation Management Areas" (TMAs) by FHWA/FTA. Oregon currently has three (3) TMAs; Portland, Salem and Eugene MPOs. All incorporated cities within these MPO boundaries share this separate STP allocation and do not receive their own STP allocation. For all the other UZAs under 200,000 in population (Medford, Bend, and Corvallis), the STP allocation is based on a calculation that ODOT, Association of Oregon Counties (AOC) and League of Oregon Cities (LOC) have agreed upon (this agrccmcnt is currently being revisited bccausc of incrcascs in population). C. ODOT CONTACTS FOR STP QUESTIONS K~-n Norton Federal Aid Specialist ODOT Region 3 Headquarters (541) 957-3510 Alisa Roylance ODOT Funds & Grants Program Coordinator (503) 986-3036 Stefan Hamlin ODOT Highway Finance Office Program and Funding Services (503) 986 - 3036 (503) 986- 4467 FAX RVMPO Boundary Expansion Information Page 9 Thursday, August 08, 2002 Table 2 Urbanized Area 2000 Census Population bY Jurisdiction Reference Table Jurisdiction Porn ------- 19,522 Ashland -------- 5,589 Talent ------ 4,060_ Phoenix 2,235__ Jacksonville 63,154_ Medford 12,493 Central Point __----- 5,466_ White City_ _----- 16,26_~_1 Other Unincorporated ____- Total Medford UZA Year 2000 Po ulap__~.~_~ 4,797_ ~___~le Point D. NEW MEMBERS ANO MPO STP Ftn~os ODOT ~ares STP funds with the local jurisdictions with a population of 5,000 t() 199,999. Thisis normally referred to as the "STP allocation." The cities of Talent and Aslfland have be~x eligible for this ODOT STP allocation up until becoming a part of tho Medtbrd UZA. Under the current ODOT/I.K)C/AOC agreement, Talent's and Ashland's STP alh ~ations will be ~eluded in this year's MPO STP alloc~on (O~tober 2002). Table 3 below si Ows the 2001 'STP allocations. Also, the unincorporated community of White City has I~ m add~xl to tho UZA which will most likely result in an increase in STP funds to tho MPO. Table 3 2001 ODOT STP Allocations Jurisdiction R~ Amount ~ Talent . $2s ~.~_a4 · Eagle Point will be eligible for a direct STP allocafon upon resolution o~their official census population ~i_'_mato. · ~ city o£Jacksonville is eligible for funds through tho S~ City/~tlotment (SCA) prognma.. The City of Phoenix is also olisiblo for tbe SCA progr~ bw~use their population is below 5,000. · RVMPO Boundary Expansion Information Thurs4ay, August 08, 2002 Page 10 E. CURRENT "UNOFFICIAL" ROGUE VALLEY MPO SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM (STP) POLICY Generally, available STP funds are rotated to each RVMPO member jurisdiction on an equitable basis as determined by the Policy Committee. An informal process allows all jurisdictions to discuss their needs and their ability to utilize STP funds. Each jurisdiction has the ability to bring their priorities to thc Policy Committee (through a recommendation from the TAC) and the STP dollars will be rotated through the MPO jurisdictions as appropriate. Projects should be multi-modal in nature and be consistent with the goals and policies contained in thc Regional Transportation Plan. Projects selected must either be listed in thc Regional Transportation Plan or must be added to the plan through the amendment process. If the building of the project will have regional impacts, that project must be added to the air quality conformity process. F. RVMPO RELATIONSHIP WITH ROGUE VALLEY AREA COMMISSION ON TRANSPORTATION 0ZVACT) IN T~E MPO TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) DEVELOPMENT PROCESS FOR STATE MOOERNIZATION PROJECTS The State of Oregon, by and through the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC), chartered Area Commissions on Transportation to advise the OTC on transportation planning, policy and project issues. The Code of Federal Regulations establishes roles and responsibilities for Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP) within Metropolitan Planning Areas 23 CFR 450, § 450.324. The regulations include roles and responsibilities for both MPO's and the State of Oregon. Those roles and responsibilities include but are not limited to the following: MI, O Develops TIP in cooperation with the State and affected public transit operator Approves TIP Performs regional conformity analysis · Develops financial plan in cooperation with the State and transit operator Works with the State to refine and finalize a financial plan State of Orei~on (Governor~ OTC} · Is consulted during development of the TIP · Approves TIP (OTC) · Includes TIP in the Statewide Transportation Impwvement Program (STIP) ·Provides MPO's estimate of federal and State funds available for TIP during STIP development process · Works with the MPO to refine financial estimates · Performs project selection for State and Title 23 funds in cooperation with the MPO from approved TIP RVMPO Boundm'y Expamion Information Page 11 Thursday, August 08, 2002 RVACT) have cooperatively established the following process for development oi~the TIP for S~ta_ f~nd_~'~d modorl~_i=~_~_on proj~cts only. ' 1 R"*'~'~ ~IP Devel~'"--"n* Proo~t for State Fu ed derniza Pro' ts nl the Jackson and Josephine County area MPO boundary). · State (RVACT) applies project selecti'on criteria (developed by State (RVACTi to all projects), bound · The RVMPO prioritizes modernization projects that are within the RVMPO ary based on an ODOT estimated budget that is included in the Regional Transportation Plan · The State (RVACT) prioritizes rural (non-MPO) modernization projects. · State (RVACT) merges priorities for the two-county area for purpose of refinirLg financial eztirn~e between the MPO and the rest of thc area. · Any changes RVACT makes to thc MPO TIP modernization project priorities go back to the MPO for approval. · MPO approves final TIP. · OTC approves final TIP (with RVACT support). RVMPO Boundary Expansion Infonmtion Thursday, August 08, 2002 Page 12 Figure I I ~ EAGLE POINT