Survey on the Texas Department of Transportation Project Selection and Funds Distribution Process

The Transportation Planning and Programming (TP&P) Division of the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is responsible for administering the Project Selection and Funds Distribution Process. The process, which has evolved over the years, is largely driven by federal requirements. Although the Department has made recent efforts to simplify the process and to provide greater flexibility, there are currently 34 funding categories in what is still a complex process.

In late 2000, the TP&P Division identified a need to better understand the perception of TxDOT District personnel and staff at Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) in the state on the Project Selection and Funds Distribution Process. Through an Interagency Agreement, the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI), a part of the Texas A&M University System conducted surveys of TxDOT District Engineers, District Transportation Planning and Development (TP&D) Directors, and MPO chiefs of staff to help identify current perceptions relating to the Project Selection and Funds Distribution Process, possible training and outreach efforts, and potential enhancements to the process. This report summarizes the survey results and presents possible follow-up activities for consideration by the Division.

Researchers completed a number of activities as part of this study. Developing, administering, and analyzing surveys of key groups involved in the TxDOT Project Selection and Funds Distribution Process represents the major project task. The questionnaires were developed through the cooperative efforts of TTI and TxDOT staff. Surveys were mailed to TxDOT District Engineers, TxDOT District TP&D Directors, and the chief staff person at the 25 MPOs in the state. Copies of the three questionnaires are provided in Appendix A, B, and C. These individuals were asked to complete the survey and fax it back to TTI. Follow-up telephone calls and E-mails were used to remind individuals to complete the survey and to ensure that responses and comments were accurately understood.

This report is divided into two chapters following this introduction. Chapter Two presents the survey results from the TxDOT District Engineers, the TxDOT District TP&D Directors, and the MPO chief of staff. The report concludes with a summary of the common themes from the surveys, the identification of possible areas for enhancing the Project Selection and Funds Distribution Process, and suggestions for training and informational materials.

This chapter summarizes the results from the surveys of TxDOT District Engineers, TxDOT District TP&D Directors, and MPO staff. Information on the survey process and the response rates for each group is presented first. The remainder of the chapter summarizes the responses to the various questions from the three groups.

As noted in the previous chapter, a combination of mail, fax, and E-mail was used to distribute the surveys. The questionnaires were originally mailed to TxDOT District Engineers, TxDOT District TP&D Directors, and MPO staff in late November 2000. Individuals were requested to fax the survey back to TTI by mid-December. Follow-up telephone calls and E-mails with electronic copies of the questionnaire were used by TTI and TxDOT staff to remind individuals to complete and return the surveys.

Copies of the questionnaire are provided in Appendices A, B, and C. The questionnaires for TxDOT District Engineers and the District TP&D Directors were the same. The questionnaire for MPO staff was slightly different. It did not contain the detailed questions on internal elements of the process that were included in the TxDOT surveys, and questions were reworded to reflect the opinion of MPO rather than TxDOT staff.

Table 1 highlights the response rate from each group. The overall response rate from TxDOT District Engineers, TxDOT District TP&D Directors, and MPO staff was very good, averaging 100 percent, 84 percent, and 88 percent respectively. The four TP&D Directors and the three MPO staff who did not respond to the survey represent a mix of urban and rural areas. Thus, the responses provide a representative sample of TxDOT Districts and MPOs.

Individuals in all three groups were asked to describe their general involvement and responsibilities related to the TxDOT Project Selection and Funds Distribution Process. The comments from individuals in each group were similar in the scope of their responsibilities. District Engineers stressed their oversight and final approval responsibilities in the process. District TP&D Directors focused on their role in developing the project and funding recommendations, managing the program, and coordinating activities with the MPO and other groups. MPO staff stressed their agency’s role in approving the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), providing input to TxDOT through technical committees, and specific responsibilities related to some federal programs and funding categories.

Individuals were asked how long they have been in their current position and the number of years they have been involved in the Project Selection and Funds Distribution Process. As shown in Table 2, TxDOT District Engineers and MPO staff tend to have been their current positions longer than TP&D Directors. A majority of individuals in all groups reported involvement in the Project Selection and Funds Distribution Process for five or more years.

A total of 60 percent of the District Engineers have been in their current positions for at least five years and 88 percent have been involved in the Project Selection and Funds Distribution Process for more than five years, including 56 percent who have participated in the process for 10 years or more. District TP&D Directors have less longevity in their current positions and experience with the process. Slightly over half have been in their current position for four years or less, although 72 percent have been involved in the process for at least five years. A total of 64 percent of the MPO staff have been in their current position for five or more years, and 68 percent reported involvement in the process for five years or more.

TxDOT and MPO staff were asked to describe their general perspective on the Project Selection and Funds Distribution Process. This open-ended question provided the opportunity for respondents to comment as they wished on the process. All groups noted the complexity of the process, which makes it difficult for other groups to understand. The nature of the responses from each group are summarized below.

Most District Engineers acknowledged the complexity of the process, but most also noted that it accomplishes the intended results and provides a generally fair process for selecting and funding projects. Many District Engineers suggested that the complexity makes it difficult for other groups to understand. The following responses provide examples of the comments made by District Engineers.

•   Because of our constant involvement in the process, we make it work. At times, it seems too restrictive and complicated. Extremely difficult to explain.

•   The multiple categories of funding, which continues to grow in number, causes considerable confusion for those who do not deal with them on a regular basis

•   TP&P does an outstanding job of balancing funds to needs. Process should continue to be needs based

•   Overly complex, confusing, difficult to keep up with internally, and impossible to explain to non-TxDOT employees. I think the arcane inexplicability severely erodes our credibility with local politicos and local agency staffs, and ultimately with the citizenry.

•   There are some complexities due to the number of categories of funding and rules associated with each. I feel comfortable that TxDOT does a good job of working cooperatively with MPOs, cities, counties, and the public to select projects and that funding is distributed in a reasonably equitable manner throughout the state.

•   The process is very difficult for most – except those repeat users – people to comprehend. Those who understand a particular category may have very little knowledge of others. Also, the division of funds into separate “pots” requires creative action to fully fund some projects.

•   It is not an easy-to-understand process, but is necessary to have an organized approach to project development.

•   There are some complexities due to the number of categories of funding and rules associated with each. We spend quite a bit of time, both internally and with MPO, city and county personnel as well as the public, discussing funding issues. In general, I feel comfortable that TxDOT does a good job of working cooperatively with MPOs, cities, counties, and the public to select projects and that funding is distributed in a reasonably equitable manner throughout the state. If the processes could be simplified while keeping this level of fairness, that would be a distinct improvement

•   Too confusing. To many constraints and qualifiers.

•   Process is complicated and not easily understood, but is utilized as best the District can in order to provide the best transportation system possible within available resources.

•   There are only a handful of people that have some understanding of the process, but even less than that have regular use and understanding. There are also many unwritten rules that only the TP&P Division is privileged to know and implement or interpret.

•   You really have to work on this process on a regular basis to keep current of all the changes in project ranking and funding. As District Engineer, I can only stay on top of major projects and rely on my TP&D Director to handle most of the work

•   The District staff in planning and project selection is very involved and knowledgeable on the process. We have developed a local project selection process that has been accepted by all local officials and MPOs. Having a selection process in place allows all projects to be rated on a level playing field.

•   The process has become increasingly complex over the years. The process provides the flexibility needed by the Districts to address the majority of diverse needs.

Comments from the District TP&D Directors reflect similar perspectives. The complexity of the process was noted by most, as was the difficulty in explaining it to other groups. Most indicated that they had a very good understanding of the process, as that is their job, and make it work for their District. Examples of the types of comments received from TP&D Directors include the following.

•   Fair process which is easy to understand and use.

•   The process can be a bit overwhelming at first, but it can be learned without too much difficulty.

•   Process is complex and difficult to understand unless you work with it on a daily basis.

•   It has evolved over the past seven years with the ISTEA and TEA-21. It is not easy to understand, to develop strategies for better positioned projects, and to communicate to elected officials, MPO, and other groups. TP&P changes funding distribution/processes year to year, making it difficult to plan from the District’s perspective.

•   Very good process. TP&P does a very good job with an extremely difficult task.

•   I have a pretty good understanding of the process and our use as a result of many years of working with project selection and funding.

•   The process involves many individuals within and outside the Department. The funding categories and selection methods are difficult to explain. Training in the funding categories would be beneficial to those who do not work frequently in this.

•   No problems understanding it. It would be much easier to manage Bank Balance Programs if the District was allowed to update DCIS information such as work program number, costs, and project descriptions. Districts could be held accountable for management.

•   District staff and area engineers have good understanding of the project selection of District Bank Balance project selections. The statewide selection of projects based on an efficiency involved is somewhat more complicated and the understanding at the District level is somewhat less than the Bank Balance process.

•   I understand how the UTP and MPO project selections are made, but I do not have a clear understanding of the formulas used for UTP selection. The formulas are necessary to ensure fairness and an equitable distribution of the funds. They also need to be re-evaluated occasionally to be sure they are accomplishing this intent.

•   I think its is a fair process which is easy to understand and use.

•   It is a complicated process that is not understood at levels below my district design staff. The general feeling is that funding for projects will be done at the district level since it is complicated. Even staff have difficulties understanding all of the process and how it ties together.

•   Overall, the process is complicated, difficult to understand, cumbersome to work with and impossible for the public, elected officials to comprehend. The process requires constant attention to maintain a superior level of understanding.

•   The process can be a bit overwhelming at first, however I do not think the process is so difficult that a person could not learn the “do’s and don’ts”.

MPO staff indicated mixed feelings on the ease of understanding of the process in general and the use within their area. A number of individuals commented that it is difficult to understand the process, especially for board members, and that TxDOT is the driving force behind the process. The following comments highlight some of the responses from MPO staff.

•   It would be hard for an outsider to understand.

•   It is relatively easy to understand, but I have been doing it for seven years. I am not sure how easy it would be for someone new to the region to pick up.

•   Project selection is generally well understood. The funds distribution seems arcane to most.

•   Policy Committee members do not remember the details of this process. After they have been briefed the details are forgotten quickly.

•   There are so many funding categories it is difficult to keep track of them and which ones are available for our use.

•   It is easy to understand the reasoning. The application has faults.

•   Our District calls all the shots. We let them know what our priorities are and they really do a good job getting to them.

•   TxDOT controls the process and because of our non-TMA status, they control distribution and selection. Because there are no set rules, the process is difficult to understand.

•   Not easy to understand. Funding and project priorities seem to change regularly.

•   Because of the multitude of funding categories, it is difficult to get a good grasp on the process. Combining funding categories is probably not an option, however.

•   It is still mostly a mystery to me after 8 years. I even find that TxDOT personnel cannot explain it. How does TxDOT decide which categories funds are put in?

•   For years the area has relied on TxDOT in the project selection process. We are now at a point where communication has opened up and TxDOT is continuously seeking our input.

•   Not well understood by non-TxDOT staff and elected officials.

•   We receive very little information outside MPO project selection.

•   The process is cumbersome, unmanageable, and hard to understand.

•   Those portions of TxDOT’s methodology that utilize allocation formulas (as opposed to individual project selection) are best understood. The division of funds between urban, rural and metropolitan counties (if this process is still used as a guide) is poorly documented or understood. TxDOT’s categorization of activities do not always translate into intuitive, logical project selection categories within the region.

The opened-ended question on general perspectives related to the Project Selection and Funds Distribution Process was followed by a series of specific questions on how well the process is understood by various agencies, groups, and individuals. Respondents were asked to provide both their general perspective on the level of understanding among the various groups and to rate specific statements on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being “understand well” and 5 being “do not understand well.”

Table 3 provides the results of the ratings for District Engineers and District TP&D Directors, while Table 4 presents the results for MPO staff. Numerical ratings of 1 to 2 reflect a “understand well” response. A rating of 3 reflects a “neutral” response. Numerical ratings of 4 to 5 indicate a “do not understand well” response. The general comments provided by respondents mirror the ratings presented in Tables 3 and 4. The open-ended responses and the ratings are both summarized next.

Overall, TxDOT District Engineers and District TP&D Directors indicated they have a high level of understanding of the process and the roles and responsibilities of MPOs, cities, and counties. Ratings on all four statements relating to their own understanding of the various elements ranged between 1.1 and 1.5.

MPO staff rated TxDOT personnel understanding of the process and the roles and responsibilities of various agencies slightly lower, with ratings ranging from 1.8 to 2.2. Although lower than the self-ratings by TxDOT staff, the comments provided by MPO staff indicate a feeling that TxDOT District personnel understand the process well and are knowledgeable about the various categories.

TxDOT District Engineers and District TP&D Directors rated MPO staff lower on their understanding of the process and the roles and responsibilities of the various agencies. The ratings by TxDOT staff for MPO staff on the four statements ranged from 2.0 to 2.9. These ratings, which indicate a relatively good level of understanding, were supported by comments in the open-ended questions. A number of TxDOT staff suggested that the process and certain funding categories, such as the bank balance categories, were better understood by the MPO staff than the formulas. Others indicated that while MPO staff have a general understanding of the process, they rely heavily on the Districts. A few respondents suggested that MPOs should have a better understanding of the process.

The self-ratings by MPO staff ranged from 1.8 to 2.3 on the four statements, reflecting a perceived good level of understanding. The comments provided reflect these ratings. Twelve MPO staff members reported they understood the process fairly to very well. Two noted that as the MPO Director they were the most knowledgeable, and that other staff were not as well versed on the process. One respondent suggested refresher training was needed periodically by MPO staff.

Both TxDOT and MPO staff rated MPO policy board members, city and county staff, and elected and appointed officials low on their understanding of the process. Ratings for MPO policy board members ranged from 2.9 to 3.6, while ratings for city and county staff were 3.2 to 3.9, and 3.5 to 4.2 for elected and appointed officials.

Comments from TxDOT and MPO staff reflected these ratings. In general, comments related to MPO policy board members reflected a higher level of understanding than those for city and county staff and elected and appointed officials. A number of comments suggested that the project selection process was better understood than the formula/fund distribution process. It was also noted that these groups often have interest in specific projects rather than the overall process. It was also suggested that the turnover among staff, board members, and officials meant that ongoing education and outreach efforts are needed.

TxDOT District Engineers and District TP&D Directors were asked a series of questions on the Trade Fair element of the Project Selection and Funds Distribution Process. Both groups were first asked their general perception of the Trade Fair. This open-ended question was followed by two specific questions on the influence of the Trade Fair on their perception of the Project Selection and Funds Distribution Process and on the ability of the District to fund priority projects. MPO staff were asked if they were aware of the Trade Fair element and if it made a difference in their perception of the process and the ability of the region to obtain funding.

As highlighted in Tables 5 and 6, TxDOT District Engineers are fairly evenly split on how the Trade Fair has influenced their perception of the Project Selection and Funds Distribution Process, while a slight majority of TP&D Directors do not feel it has made a difference in their perception of the process. As noted below, comments from TxDOT District Engineers and TP&D Directors reflect a mix of perspectives on the Trade Fair. The number in parentheses represents the number of responses reflecting similar comments.

•   A necessary tool to balance statewide expenditures in the Federal Bank Balance programs.

•   Not a “trade fair.” Mechanism used to assist TP&P Division in a yearly audit of categories (2).

•   Excellent – this is the only way small Districts can fund a big project.

•   Necessary from TP&P Division’s standpoint, of help to the Districts.Somewhat helpful to the Districts.An opportunity to exchange information on funding needs and allows for planning future projects with some assurance of funding availability.

•   Allows the Districts more input which results in a better program.

•   Good tool for “tweeking” the process.

•   Excellent method to balance funding and discuss funding for important projects.

•   Have not seen advantage to District, have not been able to take advantage of it (2).

•   Good, allows more flexibility (6).

•   Excellent tool for intermediate planning.

•   Maybe to point where meeting is not necessary – could be handled by e-mail or telephone (2).

•   No question – the Trade Fair has been a big improvement.

District Engineers responded that the Trade Fair element has made a difference in their District’s ability to fund priority projects, while a majority of TP&D Directors indicated that it has not made a difference. There were two District Engineers that noted it was critical to funding projects, while two noted it has made slight improvements. One TP&D Director noted that the Trade Fair has helped accelerate projects, while another noted they still have difficulty securing enough funds for projects.

A total of 16, or 73 percent of the 22 MPO staff members responding to the survey indicated an awareness of the Trade Fair element in the Project Selection and Funds Distribution Process. While these responses indicate an awareness of the Trade Fair element among MPO personnel, it appears that most staff do not have detailed knowledge of the process or the influence it has had on funding projects in the area. For example, a few MPO staff commented that although they knew of the Trade Fair element, they were unaware of the process or how it works. Only 9, or 41 percent of the responding MPO staff indicated that the Trade Fair has made a difference in their perception of the Project Selection and Funds Distribution Process, while 13, or 59 percent, responded that it has made a different in the region’s ability to fund priority projects.

As highlighted in Table 7, a majority of both District Engineers, 68 percent, and TP&D Directors, 86 percent, responded that the data needs of the process are about right. One District Engineer suggested that not enough data was used in the process. The comments provided by TxDOT staff reflect these responses, with most indicating that the data needs are appropriate for the process. MPO staff indicated that the amount of data appeared correct, although most noted only a vague idea of the data needs of the process.

District Engineers and District TP&D Directors were asked if the data generated from the Project Selection and Funds Distribution Process was used for other purposes and if the data have allowed the District to be more innovative in matching projects with potential funding. As highlighted in Tables 8 and 9, the majority of the District Engineers and TP&D Directors reported that the data are used for other purposes and that it has been of benefit to the District in matching projects with possible funding sources.

District Engineers and TP&D Directors provided the following comments on some of the ways the data are used. The number in parenthesis represents the number of responses reflecting similar comments.

•   Try to get a feel on how Austin will rank projects.

•   Use for strategic planning on how we can best secure funding for projects, especially urgent needs.

•   Use partially for bank balance project selection.

•   Use mainly for information purposes. Provides general idea of where our projects stand in relation to others in the state. Also of use in explaining why we do not receive much funding in some categories. So, use in a variety of ways.

•   Use data to evaluate future projects. Helps determine the level of funding needed from other sources to rate projects higher.

•   Allows us to see what future funding possibilities are and do preliminary work, such as public relations and cost estimates for utilities and right-of-way participation.

•   Helps establish project selection, scheduling, and attempts to maximize funding (4).

•   Helps identify potential new projects, plan funding use, and validate preliminary decisions.

•   Very helpful in ranking at District level (3).

As noted in Table 9, a majority of both District Engineers and TP&D Directors responded that the available data have allowed their District to be more innovative in matching projects with potential funding. Benefits noted by TxDOT staff included the ability to combine funding categories for large projects, the ability to leverage funds from different programs, utilizing the Bank Balance effectively, moving projects from one category to another based on available funding, and estimating future allocations and project needs.

District Engineers and District TP&D Directors were asked if the data generated from the Project Selection and Funds Distribution Process was used for other purposes and if the data have allowed the District to be more innovative in matching projects with potential funding. As highlighted in Tables 8 and 9, the majority of the District Engineers and TP&D Directors reported that the data are used for other purposes and that it has been of benefit to the District in matching projects with possible funding sources.

No specific additional data needs were identified by TxDOT staff for the Process Selection and Funds Distribution Process. Only three comments requested more information on the future distribution philosophy or approach from top TxDOT management and a better understanding of how all funding is allocated.

As highlighted in Table 10, the majority of District Engineers and TP&D Directors feel their District has been able to maximize available funding through the Project Selection and Funds Distribution Process. MPO staff are slightly less positive, with 46 percent indicating the local District has been able to maximize available funding, 36 percent responding that is has not, and 18 percent providing no response. Many comments suggested that while project needs always exceed available funding, the Districts do a good job of obtaining available funding.

While there was support in all three groups for the statement that their District maximizes available funding, the questions related to the equity of the process in allocating construction funds across the state and equitably funding critical projects in their Districts drew mixed responses. Tables 11 and 12 present the responses to these questions. A total 44 percent of the District Engineers, 25 percent of the TP&D Directors, and 73 percent of the MPO staff responded that the process does not equitably allocate construction funds to all areas of the state. A total of 36 percent of the District Engineers, 57 percent of the District TP&D Directors, and 46 percent of the MPO staff indicated that the process does not equitably fund critical construction projects in the District. Comments from all groups on this question tended to focus on local needs and projects not being funded. One comment – I think projects are funded equally, but not adequately – may reflect a general perception that not enough funding is available to meet the needs in all parts of the state.

As noted in Table 13, most TxDOT and MPO staff indicated MPO policy boards, city and county staff, and elected and appointed officials share the same perception that the process does not equitably allocate funds to all areas of the state. Comments from the TxDOT and MPO staff suggest that these groups share the concern that there is not adequate funding for all parts of the state and an interest in making sure their area gets a fair share of available funds.

Table 14 contains the responses to a related question on the perception of other agency staff and policy makers to the ability of the Project Selection and Funds Distribution Process to finance critical construction projects in their districts. While the major perception is still that critical projects go unfunded, responses to this question indicate slightly more positive feelings among staff at other agencies and policy makers that the process does fund key projects in the individual districts.

An open-ended question was included in all three surveys asking about enhancements and changes respondents would like to see in the Project Selection and Funds Distribution Process. A number of suggestions were made by all three groups, with TxDOT staff providing more detailed comments than MPO staff. The most frequently noted enhancements were reducing the number of categories, simplifying the overall process, providing additional education and training, and providing a better idea of future funding levels. Examples of comments made by respondents are noted below. The number in parenthesis represents the number of responses reflecting similar comments.

•   Cut the number of categories/fewer funding categories (4).

•   Simplify process (2).

•   Considering internal turnover, more education and training is needed.

•   Enhance forms.

•   Reexamine formulas used in ranking (2)

•   Establish a regional discretionary fund for multiple-District projects

•   Better information on future funding levels.

•   Provide more flexibility (2).

•   HES Program should be brought into allocation process. New Farm-to-Market and Off-System Bridge programs should have a Bank Balance portion.

•   Consider adding accident rate or fatality rate as factor to help in rural categories or take out some categories and put in District discretionary to help with unique projects (2).

•   Maybe a minimum allocation of funds per District. Meet with TP&P staff annually in the fall to go over project selection and funding that will occur in the spring.

•   Eliminate terrain factors from CEI formulas for project competition for funds on a statewide basis.

•   Give more weight to corridor completion and network continuity and preservation.

•   More authority for Districts to select projects – increase the number of Bank Balance categories of work.

•   Some consideration for funding major reconstruction in low traffic volume areas.

•   Add Bank Balance District allocation for 4A, 6B, and 8A categories.

•   Would like to see process more truly intermodal. Right now bicycles only receive STP 4B and transit projects have very little opportunity.

•   Perhaps more individuals at the MPO level should/could be involved in the Trade Fair.

•   Full disclosure in user-friendly format available in a timely fashion on the Internet. Attitude shift by TxDOT state staff to treat MPOs as customers.

•   More information on the process. Need educational materials related to process.

•   Take economic development into account.

•   Consider Missouri’s (MDOT) process for suballocating all funds to the metropolitan areas. It provides a much better basis for future planning and resource allocation, and it allows local priorities to be better served.

•   Simplify procedures and make presentations to board members and all staff.

•   A process for the selection of corridor or sub-area development projects should be established. This process should begin with a plan adopted by the Commission and the MPO that examines optimal funding and implementation plans and schedules. Such a process would permit more logical, timely and cost effective project development. Use a two-tiered fund allocation process with one funding projects of statewide priority based on an adopted state transportation plan and a second tier formula based allocation to sub-areas that may be one or more Districts.

The final series of questions on the surveys addressed possible training, education, and outreach activities the Department could undertake. Potential efforts included both internal training for Department personnel and outreach activities targeted at MPO staff and policy makers. Individuals were asked to identify the activities they felt would be most beneficial for their staff and for other groups. Tables 15 and 16 present the responses to these two questions.

¹ Multiples responses possible.

As highlighted in Table 15, TxDOT District Engineers and District TP&D Directors identified similar educational preferences. Training sessions for TxDOT personnel was the most frequently cited response by both groups, followed by sessions at the Short Course, periodic updates at District meetings, and a video.

Other training and education materials suggested by District Engineers and District TP&D Directors included Regional District conferences, continued training for TP&D personnel, updates at meetings with TP&P Division staff, continuing to fund training for the Metropolitan Planning/Program Management Handbook, and regular meetings between the Districts and the Divisions in Austin. One TP&D Director asked about the status of the Programming and Scheduling Manual.

Table 16 highlights the responses by TxDOT and MPO staff on possible educational and outreach activities for MPO and other agency staff and elected/appointed officials. The responses from all three groups are relatively similar. Developing brochures for officials was supported most frequently by TxDOT District Engineers and TP&D Directors, followed by training sessions for MPO and other agency staff and a video for elected and appointed officials. MPO staff identified training sessions and periodic updates at meetings as the most beneficial approaches, followed by brochures and a video.

Additional comments from TxDOT staff supported the development of a video and a colorful and attractive brochure for officials and other groups. One TxDOT TP&D Director suggested the development of a PowerPoint presentation that could be used by District personnel in meetings with different groups. An MPO staff member suggested adding information and periodic updates to the TxDOT Internet site.

The difficulty in educational and outreach efforts was noted by both MPO and TxDOT staff. One MPO staff noted that the MPO Policy Committee members have expressed reluctance to spend time for training and half-day retreats. A TxDOT staff person also noted that while training is good, staff in other agencies and officials are not always motivated to learn more about what is a complex process.

¹ Multiple responses possible.

² N/A - Not included on the TxDOT District Engineer and District TP&D Directors survey.

This report documents the results of the surveys of TxDOT District Engineers, District TP&D Directors, and MPO staff on the TxDOT Project Selection and Funds Distribution Process. The responses to the various questions are presented and the comments from the different groups are summarized. The general findings from the survey are highlighted in this section, and possible follow-up activities for TxDOT’s consideration are described in the next section.

•   TxDOT District Engineers, TTP&D Directors, and MPO staff perceive that the Project Selection and Funds Distribution Process is complex and not easily understood, especially by policy board members and officials.

•   Although noting that the process is complex, most respondents indicated that the process works, that the Districts are able to maximize available resources, and that critical construction projects are being funded.

•   TxDOT staff reported a high level of understanding of the process and MPO staff indicated a good, although slightly lower level of understanding. Both groups rated MPO policy boards, city and county staff, and appointed and elected officials much lower in their understanding of the process and the roles and responsibilities of the various agencies.

•   TxDOT and MPO staff generally felt the Trade Fair was a good addition to the process, but perceptions varied on the influence it has had on funding projects. TxDOT District Engineers tended to feel it had made more of a difference in the ability to fund priority projects than TP&D Directors.

•   The data needs of the process are felt to be appropriate, with no suggestions for additional items. District personnel do use the data for other purposes and most felt it has allowed them to be more innovative in matching projects to potential funding.

•   TxDOT and MPO staff reported mixed feelings on the equity of the process to allocate construction funds to all areas of the state and to fund critical projects in their areas. Most suggested that MPO policy board members, city and county staff, and elected and appointed officials reflected this same perspective and would question if their area was receiving its fair share of funding.

•   Training, education, and outreach activities supported by TxDOT and MPO staff include training sessions, sessions at the Short Course, periodic updates at District and MPO meetings, a video, and a brochure.

•   Suggested enhancements to the process include reducing the number of categories, simplifying the overall process, providing a better idea of future funding levels, and making specific changes to some categories.

Researchers identified two sets of follow-up activities for consideration by TxDOT staff based on the survey results. As described in this section, the first focuses on education and outreach efforts and the second addresses possible enhancements to the process.

Training, Education, and Outreach Activities. Based on the survey responses, it is suggested that the TP&D Division undertake a number of training, education, and outreach activities. These efforts should focus on TxDOT staff, MPO staff, MPO policy board members, city and county staff, and elected and appointed officials.

•   First, training sessions for TP&D Directors and other District personnel should be developed and held on a regular basis. This training should provide an overview of the process and detailed information on how the Districts complete each step. If TxDOT continues to experience a turnover in staff, periodic training will be needed for new TP&D Directors and other TxDOT staff.

•   Second, periodic updates should be provided by TP&P staff for District personnel. These updates could take place at District meetings, a meeting in Austin for TP&D Directors and TP&P staff, District Engineer meetings, or other appropriate times. These meetings might include updates on any changes or modifications in the process, anticipated funding levels, schedules, and general discussions on concerns or issues.

•   Third, sessions should be organized for the Short Course on the Project Selection and Funds Distribution Process. These sessions could be part of the main program or special meetings for TP&D Directors and other District staff. Possible topics for these sessions include updates from TP&P staff, examples of innovative approaches used by the Districts, and anticipated funding levels.

•   Fourth, a training or information course should be developed for MPO staff. This session would provide an overview of the process, the roles and responsibilities of MPOs, and other involvement of MPO staff in specific elements of the process. The course could be presented on a periodic basis at regular meeting of the MPOs in the state and in response to specific requests when new staff join an MPO.

•   Finally, a video and a brochure should be developed for use with MPO policy board members, elected and appointed officials, other groups, and the public. The video and brochure should provide an overview of the process, the roles and responsibilities of the various agencies, and how different groups can be involved. The video and brochure should be of high quality, easy to follow, and appropriate for a wide range of audiences.

Possible Enhancements to the Project Selection and Funds Distribution Process. TxDOT District personnel and MPO staff responding to the survey provided a variety of suggestions for possible enhancement and changes to the process. These suggestions ranged from general comments on simplifying the process to specific recommendations related to criteria within individual categories. TP&P staff should review these suggestions and consider possible modifications in the appropriate categories and the process. After reviewing the items identified in the survey, Division staff may wish to meet with TP&D Directors and MPO staff to discuss the suggestions in more detail and to identify possible approaches to addressing the comments.