"The categories and funding levels represent the goals and visions of the region"

Reading a prior LRTP and I feel strangely humbled. I don't think I've ever seen a clearer connection made between funding and goals. Too often, the connection between goals and funding is nebulous, and only linked by project prioritization schema. 

Too often, the financially constrained work program is just a laundry list of widening projects where the model forecast congestion, with intersection improvements where widening seems too expensive, with a dash of safety projects where public outcry has been loud enough, and whatever Bike/Ped projects dedicated activists can drive through.

By deciding in advance what mattered and how much, it financially constrained not just the whole plan, but specific types of projects within the plan. And only then was the ranking of specific projects considered. 

#--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before ranking and selecting the submitted projects for the LRTP, the TAC set a guide for the funding level of the different types of transportation projects. Eleven different categories were reviewed for funding. The categories were: 

1. 1. Safety Intersection 
2. 2. Geometric Intersections 
3. 3. Corridor Safety Improvement 
4. 4. Road Widening < 5 Miles 
5. 5. Road Widening > 5 Miles 
6. 6. Bike/Ped Facilities 
7. 7. Transit 
8. 8. Resurfacing Primary 
9. 9. Resurfacing Secondary 
10. 10. Bridge 
11. 11. New Roadway 

The TAC approved distribution of the COG’s LRTP funding of approximately $125M between seven categories. The categories and funding levels represent the goals and visions of the region. Below are the total categories, the percent of the total funding and the approximate amount of funding available over the life of the LRTP (25 years.)