In transportation planning and investing, it's often the "big ticket" items of major regional significance that get the most attention. Smaller, more localized projects, such as replacement of an obsolete bridge on a county road, a village traffic calming project, signal and sign improvements at an intersection, or roadway resurfacing and safety upgrades, may seem secondary. But it's important to recognize that — even if they are taken for granted individually —projects of this sort do become regionally significant as key components of the transportation network.
| This article appeared in December 2004 Mobility Matters. By Ted Ritter. |
 |
The NJTPA has committed itself to helping counties and cities advance these kinds of projects — ones with real local impact, as well as regional significance — in light of one of the most important goals of ISTEA, the federal legislation that empowered Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and its successor TEA-21. That goal, to see that federal transportation dollars serve local needs, has led to the creation of the NJTPA Local Scoping and Local Lead programs.
The Local Scoping and Local Lead programs are both administered annually. Together, the programs give the region's 15 subregions — 13 counties and two cities — an opportunity to apply for Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funding that takes transportation improvements from concept development through construction. These programs require the subregions to navigate the often complex web of federal regulations. These include requirements for conducting environmental impact reviews and meeting often detailed national engineering standards.
Staffs from both the NJTPA and the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) provide technical assistance and guidance for all projects funded through both programs, which allows the subregions to better handle this sometimes difficult task.
"These programs allow local governments to take a project from its earliest stages all the way through completion, from an idea to reality," said NJTPA Chairman Peter S. Palmer, Freeholder, Somerset County.
The Local Scoping program, which began in 1993, provides federal funds to subregions to advance proposed projects through preliminary engineering and federal environmental reviews. Once a subregion identifies a transportation problem (such as a congested road, deteriorating bridge, etc.), it applies to the NJTPA for set-aside Local Scoping funding. If its application is approved, it then uses the money to develop solutions to the problem during the "scoping" phase of the project development process. Since the Local Scoping program began, 85 projects have been funded totaling nearly $23 million. Completion of the scoping phase readies the project to enter final design.
The Local Lead program, which began in 1996, provides funding to advance projects through this phase, as well as right-of-way acquisition and construction. Since its inception, the NJTPA has doled out $157 million dollars for 134 Local Lead projects. (See Local Scoping/Local Lead Funding sidebar).
Many of the transportation improvements funded through the Local Scoping and Local Lead programs might not have been accomplished otherwise. "A lot of these projects — road resurfacing, bridge replacement/rehabilitation, signal upgrades, intersection improvements — are classified as "local" and don't always make it onto the NJDOT radar screen for funding," explains NJTPA Principal Environmental Planner Sean Vroom. With scarce NJDOT staff resources mostly devoted to preparing projects on major travel corridors, the subregions often have been left to finance such improvements on their own without federal money. Even those that are potential NJDOT projects may face a long waiting list, competing with other projects around the state for very limited funds.
Further, like transportation agencies at the regional and state levels, most counties in the NJTPA region have more projects on their transportation "wish lists" than their capital budgets will be ever able to fund. At the local or county level, big-ticket projects like bridge replacements often must take a back seat to more "bread-and-butter" projects, such as resurfacing, drainage improvements, and routine maintenance that are essential to the day-to-day operation of the roadway network.
Therefore, the Local Scoping and Local Lead programs play a key role. "We are very grateful to the NJTPA and the FHWA for providing us with this [Local Scoping and Local Lead] money, because without these funds, it would be extremely difficult for the county to do certain projects," explains Assistant Morris County Engineer Sandy Thapar. As a prime example, he points to the significant cost — nearly $17 million — of the Washington Street Bridge replacement (see Success Stories), which was funded through the Local Scoping and Local Lead programs.
"The county's capital budget is just not big enough to take care of this major bridge replacement when we have so many others to maintain," emphasizes Thapar. "With the county's total capital budget at $20 million, how can you spend $17 million on one job?"
This theme is echoed on the Jersey Shore — among other locations —where the replacement of the Mantoloking Bridge had been on the ?to do? list for years (see Success Stories). Ocean County Engineer Ron Lotrecchio points out that the $20 million project "would have taken a considerable chunk out of our overall capital program to accomplish without being part of the Local Scoping program."
In Somerset County, Principal County Engineer John Kendzulak strikes a similar chord regarding the many transportation projects waiting in the wings in the region. "The bottom line is that it's not like these projects don?t need to get done or that they're just a nice thing to do; the projects are all bridges that are in bad shape or other improvements that need to get done," said Kendzulak.
The NJTPA?s local program funding frees up county funds for other work. "If we decided to fund those projects that have been getting funding through the Local Scoping and Local Lead programs, then the other projects that we have to do with our own county funds are not going to get done," Kendzulak said. "It's a significant shot in the arm to Somerset County's capital program."
Local Scoping and Local Lead funding made it possible for Hudson County to group together the complicated upgrading of a series of more than 30 intersections (see Success Stories) to improve safety and mobility, something that John Lane, of the county?s Department of Engineering and Planning, concedes would have taken the county many years and cost more than $3 million to accomplish in stages on its own. "It certainly is a much more efficient way of doing things and a way that gets transportation improvements done faster," observes Lane.
However, even with the Local Scoping and Local Lead programs, many projects waiting to be advanced do not ultimately get financed. "Obviously, not every project gets funding," says NJTPA Chairman Palmer. "Each year, we receive many more applications than we could possibly fund." (See The Funding Crunch).
Another key task in administering the NJTPA's Local Scoping and Local Lead programs is making sure that subregions with active projects keep them high on their priority list. "The subregions are the owners of the projects and it is up to them to advance the projects," explains NJTPA Third Vice-Chairman and Sussex County Freeholder Susan Zellman, who also chairs the NJTPA's Project prioritization Committee. "The NJTPA Central Staff has the role of expediting the process as much as is practically possible but, ultimately, it is the responsibility of the subregions to keep the ball rolling."
Vroom admits that that can be quite a job. "With the number of active projects increasing each year, it's a challenge for the NJTPA to provide ongoing guidance to the subregions and help keep them on-task to meet program requirements," he says.
Further, although most subregions participate in the Local Scoping and Local Lead programs, Vroom notes that some subregions do not due to a lack of eligible projects "or because they feel that the federal funding process is too cumbersome for certain projects." Vroom says that this isn't necessarily a bad thing. "A subregion's ability to recognize that certain projects are a bad match for the programs saves them a lot of difficulties in the long run."
Nevertheless, many subregions have become increasingly aggressive in their pursuit of Local Scoping and Local Lead funding. Thapar is quick to point out that "we have more than 10 Local Scoping projects on the table at the NJTPA and we appreciate every penny that we're given."
Morris County has received funding for roughly two projects a year. "We're very happy with the way the system is working," Thapar says.
Likewise, in Somerset County, Kendzulak indicates that the county takes the Local Scoping and the Local Lead programs very seriously because they represent an opportunity for the county to get funding that can get projects done. "Granted, it's federal funds, so you've got to play the game and jump through a lot of hoops, but that's the nature of the beast," observes Kendzulak. He notes that Somerset County has had several bridge projects built under the Local Lead program over the years, and that doesn't even take into account the series of roadway pavement and other projects that the county has accomplished.
"Let's face it," sums up Kendzulak, "there are numerous projects out there that need to get done — bridges that are in rotten shape and need to come off the functionally obsolete or structurally deficient list or whatever " and there's nowhere near enough money. This is just another way to make a dent in that.
Sidebar: Local Scoping/Local Lead |
In 2004, $2 million was allocated to the Local Scoping program and $20 million to the Local Lead program. This is a very small amount compared to the roughly $950 million allocated each year for highway and bridge projects in the northern New Jersey region. Yet, as detailed in this issue of Mobility Matters, it represents an important resource for advancing priority local roadway, bridge and bicycle/pedestrian projects that otherwise might not be accomplished or face long delays. Under the Local Scoping program, 85 projects have been funded totaling nearly $23 million since 1993. For the Local Lead program, 134 projects have been financed with nearly $158 million since 1996. Listed below are the types of Local Scoping and Local Lead projects funded and their share of total funding (note: some types of projects, such as resurfacing and traffic signals do not require scoping)
Types of Local Scoping Projects Funded, 1993-2005 |
| Potential Future Projects |
 |
Types of Local Lead Projects |
 |
Sidebar: The Funding Crunch |
One challenge of transportation planning can be summed up in a question that is asked perennially: Which projects get allocations of ever-scarce funding? The question is becoming increasingly important for the NJTPA's highly successful Local Scoping and Local Lead programs, whose goal is to get federal transportation funding into the hands of subregions (counties and cities) to advance priority projects.
Ideally, projects that were “scoped” under the Local Scoping program — including completing environmental reviews and preliminary engineering — could then graduate to the Local Lead program in which final design, right-of-way acquisition and construction are accomplished. However, limited funding means not all graduates can be funded in the year they are ready for funding. The NJTPA uses a scoring system to evaluate projects and make funding choices. Yet a funding crunch is making it hard to advance even highly scoring projects on schedule. Not only is there a growing number of scoped projects, but they are increasingly of the more expensive variety — that is, bridge rehabilitations/replacements rather than paving or intersection improvements.
Because the Local Scoping and Lead programs rely on a funding set aside ($2 million and $20 million respectively in 2004), the crunch is likely to get worse unless something is done. The NJTPA Project Prioritization Committee is investigating solutions such as increasing the set-aside and funding expensive projects differently.