Financial shortfalls of Florida MPO long range transportation plans

Financial shortfalls of Florida MPO long range transportation plans

Material Information

Financial shortfalls of Florida MPO long range transportation plans
Alternate Title:
Financial shortfalls of Florida Metropolitan Planning Organization long range transportation plans
Zaragoza, Douglas P
Mierzejewski, Edward A
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
v, 61 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.


Subjects / Keywords:
Urban transportation -- Planning -- Florida ( lcsh )
Regional planning districts -- Florida ( lcsh )
Urban transportation -- Finance -- Florida ( lcsh )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


Additional Physical Form:
Also available online.
General Note:
"Prepared for: Florida Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council."
General Note:
"June 1997."
Statement of Responsibility:
prepared by: Douglas P. Zaragoza, Edward A. Mierzejewski.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
001928695 ( ALEPH )
37877815 ( OCLC )
C01-00111 ( USFLDC DOI )
c1.111 ( USFLDC Handle )

Postcard Information



This item has the following downloads:

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200289Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 001928695
005 20080327154509.0
008 971031s1997 flua s000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 7 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00111
2 local
b Z37 1997
1 100
Zaragoza, Douglas P.
0 245
Financial shortfalls of Florida MPO long range transportation plans /
prepared by: Douglas P. Zaragoza, Edward A. Mierzejewski.
3 246
Financial shortfalls of Florida Metropolitan Planning Organization long range transportation plans
[Tampa] :
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research,
v, 61 leaves :
ill. ;
28 cm.
"Prepared for: Florida Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council."
"June 1997."
Also available online.
Urban transportation
z Florida
x Planning.
Regional planning districts
Urban transportation
Mierzejewski, Edward A.
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
8 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856


Financial Shortfalls of Florida MPO Long Range Transportation Plans Prepared for: Florida Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council Prepared by: Douglas P. Zaragoza, AICP Edward A. Mierzejewski, Ph.D., PE Center for Urban Transportation Research College of Engineering University of South Florida June 1997


TABLE OF CONTENTS LI.ST OFT ABLES and EXHIBITS ................................................................ HoHoHoooooHooo iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... v INTRODUcriON ................................................................................................................... l Methodolog;y ................................................ ... ...... ............................. ................. .............. 1 Horizon Years .............. .......... .... . . . ..... ............................ .... ...... . . .. . . .... ................ 2 Base Year Dollars ... ..... . ................ ....... ....... ...... ............. ........ ........ ........ ................... 3 Transit Facilities I Services ....... .... . ..... ............................ .......... . .. .......... ................. . 5 Operations and Maintenance (0/M) Needs ............................ .... .... ......... ... ................... 5 Financial Shortfa lls .............. .. H ............... _,, ...... . ....... . .... ........... ................. 4 .............. 6 Operations and Future Considerations .............. ................ ........ .................................. 9 Horizon Years .. .. ... .... ....... .... . . ...... .... . ..... . . ....... ....... . .... .... .... . . ........... ...................... 9 Base Year Dollars ................................................................................ ..................... .. I 0 Operations/Maintenance Considerations ............ ..... . ... .... .......... ................................ I 0 Transit Considerations ....... . ....... .... ...... ....... . . ............. .... . . . .... . .... ................. ........ I 0 Other Considerations ... ............ .......... ....... ....... ......... ...... .............. ................................ II APPENDIX: Financial Shortfall Summary Sheets ......... 12 FDOT District One MPOs ........................... 4 .................. ....................................................... 13 Lee County MPO ........... ........ ... ........ .................................. .... .... .... ... ... ............. ........ 15 Naples (Collier CoWlty) MPO .......................... ... ......................................................... 17 Charlotte CoWlty Punta Gorda MPO ..... ... ........ ...... . . ....... . ... ... ............................... 18 Polk County Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) .......................... ............... 19 Sarasota/Manatee MPO ........................................................................... .......... ........... 21 FDOT District Two MPOs .................................. .......... .................................................... 22 Gainesville Urbanized Area MPO ... ..... . . ... . . ..... .... .... .... . .... ................ ...... ............ 24 Jacksonville Urban Area MPO ................................................ .... .... ..... .... ........... ....... 25 FDOT District Three MPOs ................................................................................... ...... 26 Panama City Urbanized Area MPO ...... .... .... ....... .... ....................... ..... ................. .... 28 Pensacola Urbanized Area MPO ....... . ...... . .......... ........ .... ........ ........................ ... ...... 29 Fort Walton Beach Urbanized Area MPO ..................................................... . ...... ... ... 30 Tallahassee-Leon CoWlty MPO ..... ................... . . ......................... .... ... ..... ............... ... 32 i i


TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) F DOT D istrict Fou r M POs .... ....... .... . . ..... . .... . .. . . .. .. . .. .. ......... ............ . ................. 33 Palm Beach County MPO ..... .... . .... . ..... ......... ......... ...... .... .... ... ... .... . ... .. .... ......... . 35 Broward County MPO .... .... .... . . ........ ............... ....................... ......... ..... ............... 37 St. Luc i e MPO ......... .... ................ ...... .............. ............ . ............ ...... . ..................... 39 Martin County MPO ...... ........ . ............................................ ... ... .... ................ . . . .... . 40 Indian River County MPO ........... .... ...... .......... .......... ......... ... ........... ...... ............ ... . 4 1 FDOT D ist ric t F ive MPO s .. .. . . ..... .... . . ..... . .. . ....... .. ....... .. .. ...... ...... . . . . . ........... ..... 4 2 Orlando Urban Area MPO ............ ... ................ . ... .... ............. ... ...... . ... ............ ...... .. ... 44 Brevard Urban Area MPO . . . .... .... . .... . . .......... .... .... ........... ... ............ .... ... .... ... . . ... 46 Vol usia County MPO ... ....... ................ . .... ......... . .... .......... .... . . ....... . . ........... . .... 47 Oca l a /Marion County MPO .... ..... ..... . .... . .... . ....... .... .... ..... ........... .... .... ..... .......... 48 FDOT Distr ict Six MP O .. . .. ...... .. . .... . . .. . .... ..... . .. . .. . .. .............. .. ........ . H 4 9 Miami Urbanized Ar e a M P O ... ...... ............. ...... ....... .... ..... ... ... ................... . ....... ...... 51 F DOT Dis t r i ct Seven MPOs ......... .... ...... . ..... ...... ...... ....... ............ ...... .. .. .. .. .. . ... .. ... 5 2 Hillsborough County MPO ....... ........... ......... ..... ......... ............. ....... ............. .......... 54 Pinellas County MP O ..... ....................... .... .... ............. .... ........... .... . . ................. ... ..... 56 Spring Hill/ H ernan d o County MPO ................. .... ...... .... ... .... .... ................ .. ...... 58 Pasco County MP O . ......................... ... ... ... ........ ....... ................... ........ ........... ........... 60 Ill


LIST OF TABLES and EXHIBITS Tables Table 1: Financial Shortfalls of Florida MPO Long Range Transportation Plans ............. 4 Table 2 : Implicit Price Deflator Factors ... ................... ...................................... ........... .... 5 Table 3: Financial Shortfall Through Year 2020 ................ ............. ... ................. ...... ... ... 8 Exhibits Exbibit 1: Financial Shortfalls of Florida MPO Long Range Transportation Plans ......... 7 IV


Executive Summary Federal and State legislation require each of Fl orida's 25 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to develop a long-range transportation plan (LRTP), with updates being prepared every three to five years. The majority of Florida's MPOs recently completed their updates to comply with the Federal H igh way Administration's (FHWA) December 1995 due date. All 25 LRTPs were reviewed for this study to estimate the cumulative, statewide LRTP funding shortfall (i.e., for the urban areas of Florida within the MPO planning boundaries) The projected funding available for implementation of each LRTP was compared with the estimated total cost of implementing all transportation improvements identified in each plan's needs assessment (or needs plan) the complete set of transportation facilities and/or services that would be necessary to accommodate forecasted transportation demand through the plan's horizon year. Some adjustments we re necessary to methodically compare the fmancial infonnation and arrive at a cumulative, statewide financial shortfall estimate. Adjustments were made to account for i ncons i stencies related to: differing plan horizon years; and differing base year dollars of cost estimates and revenue projections. Furthennore, the cost and revenue infonnation in the 25 MPO long-range plans was presented in nearly as many different fonnats. Plans incl uded dissimilar funding and cost categories and varied in the degree of detail provided. In some cases, aggregating bottom line costs and revenues for each of the MPO plans could be described as "apples to oranges" comparisons. Some of the specific differences among the plans include: treatment of operations and maintenance costs and revenues; and general categorization of improvement costs and revenues. Future cumulative financial shortfall analyses could be enhanced and could provide valuable infonnation if future LRTP updates were developed in anticipation of such a cumulative needs assessment and in consideration of some general reporting guidelines. Perhaps the mos t valuable infonnation would be a breakdown of the cumulative fmancial shortfall by responsible agency and by system type (e g FIHS, SHS, County System) Currently with a total shortfall of approximately $22 billion, it is clear that Florida's MPOs and local governments face a challenge that will require MPOs and state and local governments to work together toward identifying additional state and local sources of revenue, including further use of the loca l option gas tax. On the federal level, these units must also work together toward rectifying Florida's status as a transportation fund donor state, as Fl orida currently receives much less than one dollar of federal funding for each dollar it collects in federal gas taxes. v


Introduction Federal legislation requires that each MPO develop a cost feasible transportation plan. Specifically, the Metropolitan Planning Rule (23 CFR Part 450.322) states that an MPO's Transportation Plan shall: Include a financial plan that demonstrates the consistency of proposed transportation investments with already available and projected sources of revenue. The financial plan shall compare the estimated revenue from existing and proposed funding sources that can reasonably be expected to be available for transportation uses, and the estimated costs of constructing, maintaining, and operating the total (existing plus planned) transportation system over the period of the plan .... Florida Statutes also outline requirements for develop ing and updating LRTPs. Specifically, Chapter 339.175 ,F.S. states that each MPO l ong-range plan must: Include a financial plan that demonstr ates how the plan can be implemented, indicating resources from public and private sources which are reasonably exp ect ed to be available to carry out the plan and re commends innova t ive financing techniques that may be used to fund needed projects and programs. Federal regulations requ ir e MPO LRTPs to be updated at least every five years in areas of air quality attainment and at least every three years in air quality nonattainment or maintenance areas. In compliance with these federal regulations, the majority of Florida's MPOs completed updates to their LRTP in December 1995, with several plans being revised or finalized in 1996. Each plan reported that available and projected total funds (i.e., federal, state, local, private) fell short of the estimated total cost of implementing the projects identifie d by the needs assessment. The purpose of this project is to determine the cumulative financial shortfalls of the long range transportation plans of Florida's 25 metropolitan planning organizations. Meth odo logy The methodology to determine the overall financial shortfall involved a comparison of each MPO's needs assessment (needs plan) costs--the costs associated with the transportation facilit ies and/or servi ces that would be nece ssary to accommodate forecasted transportation demand thro ugh the horizon year of the LRTP-and the total financial resources available to each MPO to implement its LRTP. This methodology is generally similar to the steps an MPO follows to ultimately develop its financially feasible plan, first a ssess ing it s needs, then projecting its financial resources, and finally


scaling back its needs assessment to represent a suffic ien t and affordable set of transportation improvements that will balance projected future tranSportation needs with available financial resources. Data used to develop the cost/revenue comparisons were taken directly from each MPO's long-range p lan. In many instances, telephone interviews were conducted with MPO staff for clarification and to gather additional information. Finally, a summary sheet outlining the costs, revenues, and resultant financial shortfall for each MPO s long-range plan was provided to the staff director of each MPO. Staff directors were asked to review, comment, and ed it the information, assumptions, and conclusions included in the fmancial shortfall summary sheet. Preliminary results of the financial shortfall analysis were presented to both the Staff Directors' Advisory Committee and the Governing Board Conunittee at the January 23, 1997 Florida Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council (MPOAC ) meetings. Additional input was received from representatives of a handful ofMPOs at these mee t ings. While the basic steps in developing a long-range, financially feasible plan are common, the inherent characteristics of Florida's urban areas differ from region to region. Population, employment, school enrollment, and other demographic characteristics that determine travel demand and congestion levels vary widely throughout Florida. These differences ultimately influence the direction an urban area takes in addressing travel demand through the planning process and its LRTP. Similarly, in comparing the 25 MPO long-range plans, there clearly are differences in the ways in which cost and revenue information is presented, in both content and format. Major differences among the 25 LRTPs include: differing horizon years (i.e. 2015 and 2020), differing base year dollars, inclusion of transit facilities/services, and inclusion of cost estimates/revenue projections for op erati ons and maintenance (0/M) needs. Treatment of these peculiarities is discussed below. Horizon Years The LRTPs cover either the period from 2000 to 20 I 5 or the period from 2000 to 2020. The LRTPs of the following MPOs have a horizon year of 2015: Fort Walton Beach Urbanized Area, Jacksonville Urbanized Area, Palm Beach County, Broward County, Metro-Dade, Hillsborough County Pinellas County, Spring HilliHemando County, and Pasco County. The LRTP's of the 16 remaining MPOs are based on a horizon year of 2020 To account for the different horizon years among the 25 MPO plans, the total costs and revenues for each of the LRTPs were adjusted to allow for conunon 2015 and 2020 revenue/cost comparisons. More specifically, the cost estimates and revenue projections for each of the plans with a 2015 horizon year were factored up, by a factor of 1.33, to represent a year 2020 comparison. Likewise, the total costs and reve n ues for each of the 2


LRTPs with a 2020 horizo n year were factored down by a factor of .75, to represent a year 2015 comparison This procedure results in two sets of cost/revenue comparisons one for year 2015 and one for year 2020. In Table I, the actual cost estimate and revenue projection figures are shown in n ormal type while the adjusted figures are indicated with italics (The cost and revenue figures were also adjusted to represent 1995 dollars, as discussed in the next section.) As part of the ongoing planni ng efforts of local governments MPOs, and the Florida Department of Transportat ion (DOT), some future transportation improvements are considered to be committed projects, with funding already programmed as part of either the state or local five year work programs. Accordingly in the majority of the MPO plans, the costs and reve nues for these committed projects are not in cluded in the needs assessmen t and are not factored into the cost/revenue analysis (nor in the development of financially-feasible plans). Although they have differing horizon years (i.e., either 2015 or 2020), the long-range plans (with a few exceptions) present needs assessment cost estimates and revenue projections beginning with the year immediately following these five year work programs It is important to keep in mind that, although a plan may have a 2020 horizon year, the costs and revenues associated with that plan likely do not include the projects associated with the first five years of the long-range planning period. The LRTPs of the Ft. Wal ton Beach Urban ize d Area, Hillsborough County, and Pinellas County MPOs do not specifically exclude the costs and revenues associated with committed projects from the improvements inc l uded in the needs assessment. For this financial shortfall analysis, each of these plans was treated differently with regards to reconciliation of the costs and revenues of committed improvements. For the Ft. Walton Beach Urbanized Area MPO plan, the total cost of Stage 1 improvements (through year 2000) from the financially-feasible plan was deducted from the total cost of the needs assessment. Stage I revenues were also deducted. This left an approximation of only Stage 2 (2001-2015) costs/revenues for compariso n. Year 19962000 transit improvement costs and associated revenues from the Pinellas County MPO LRTP were subtracted from total transit figures. Finally, costs and revenue s associated with the committed projects of the Hillsborough County MPO LRTP are included in the financial shortfall analysis. A methodology to isolate the committed improvements was not devised, given the format of the information reported in the Hillsboroug h County MPO's plan Further details are provided in the financial shortfall summary sheets for these three MPO plans Bose Year Dollars The majority of the financial shortfall analyses conducted for this study are based on 1995 dollar values--a current year dollar considering most of the plans were completed in December of 1995. In a few cases u suall y for the plans adopted earlier than 1995, the 3


... Table 1 Financial Shortfllso f Florida MPO Long Range Transportatfon Pltna (In millions) Yea.r 2015 NOanlzec!Area -----$66,81 $11.0 I sss.o-1 $94 6 1 632.3 $ 1,167 8 $2.G>. O $843.0 $ 1.$57 0 See note 3, See no!e 4 below. ----$2,583 6 --.. ... $461.5 $705. 0 $89 .7 $615 3 Urbanized Area $378. 0 $1,124 8 $620 8 $504.0 t>on, $371.3 1 5 92.6 $54 4 1538.2 See note 3, below, 3 3 3 3 Beach Urbanized Area -Leon $ 137 1 $ 1 ,800. 0 $1,937 7 $528 8 $843.6 $408.8 $772.1 $67 : $465.6 $ 37 5 $321 0 Ut::f lotols ond cumulaUve tota l lhe

financial shortfall analys es were based on another year's dollar value. For consistency, all financial shortfall analyses for plans that were not based on 1995 dollars were converted to !995 dollars using the Implicit Price Deflator for State and Loca l Government Co nstruction in Place, from the US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Table 2 shows the Implicit Price Deflator factor used for each year to convert values t o !995 dollars. Table 2 Implicit Price Deflator Factors Year Factor Used 1991 1.09 1992 1.09 1993 1.07 1994 1.03 1 995 1.00 1996 0.98 Souroe: U.S. Department ofCommeroe, Bureau of Economic Analysis Transit Facilities I Services As stated earlier, each urbanized area in Florida has a unique set of demographic characteristics which influence local land use patterns and the compos ition of its transportation system. As a component of the transportation system, these factors directly influence the degree to which an area relies upon a transit system to supply transportation services to meet demand. Representative of these differing local conditions, the 25 MPOs address transit in their plans by means which range from making no mention of transit services to the funding of billions of dollars worth of multimoda l transit systems. Ext ensive capital investment in rail and b us transit systems contribute to significant disparity between the heavily populated MPO areas and those MPOs in less heavily populated areas. The degree to which transit projects and services are included in the cost/revenue analysis is discussed in the financial shortfall summary sheet for each MPO. Operations and Maintenance (0/M) Needs In reviewing the 25 MPO long-range plans, it is evident that some MPOs specifically broke out 0/M costs and revenues as individual cost and funding categories. In most 5


cases, however, OIM costs and revenues are not included in the cost/revenue analysis. Many of the plans state that federal, state, or local revenues for OIM needs are "taken off the top" of transportation funds and are, therefore, not addressed in the plans (because they have already been accounted for). The fmancial shortfall swnmary sheets for each of the 25 MPOs indicate whether or not OIM cost estimates and revenue projections are included in the plans Financial Shortfalls The financial shortfalls for each of the 25 MPO LRTPs are swnmarized in the Appendix. Also included in the financial shortfall summary sheets are the horizon year of the plan, the year on which the costs and revenues are based, information on the inclusion of transit costs and funding sources, and information on the inclusion of OIM costs and funding sources. Any information unique to a particular MPO, and thereby warranting special attention, is also noted in the swnmary sheets. The swnmary sheets are organized by Florida DOT districts. A graphic comparison of the total estimated Needs Assessment costs with total projected revenues expected to be available to implement the LRTP for each MPO by FOOT district, is also included in the Appendix. Table 3 swnmarizes the tota l estimated financial shortfall for each MPO Plan. Exhibit I graphically portrays the shortfalls. It is important to note that the aforementioned, District-wide financial shortfalls and the cumulative financial shortfall are reported based on a common horizon-year of 2020, although some of the LRTPs have 2015 horizon years. Again, this methodology reportS horizon year, 2020-plan shortfalls for all of the LRTPs by multiplying the 2015 shortfalls by a factor of 1.33, as described in the Methodology section. Table 3, therefore, represents the adjusted figures, which will not match the raw figures reported in the summary sheets of the Appendix 6


f/) c: co 0:: c 0 ;; co t:: 0 a. f/) c: dl Cl c: co 0:: 0> c: 0 ""...I en a. :2 co "0 ;:: 0 u: 0 f/) i 0 en co o c: co c: u: 0 .J::: (f) 0. "' "' .,; .. .. M .,;\ "' "! "' g "' 8 5! 0 "' "' :t n n .. .. .. .. .. ,qunoo opuawaH tii!H 15u.,cls vn .lCIOd ae1 g g g "! 0 0 0 "! g 5! 0 1iJ N :;} "' "! :; .. --" M .. M .. .. .. .. .. ..


Table3 Fio aoc i a l Shortfa U Through Yea r 2 0 2 0 FDO T MPOs Total ShortfaU D istrict I oclud e d (in millioos ) . Lee County $ 345 9 1 Naples (Collier County) 647. 7 Charlotte County-Punta Gorda 185.3 Polk C ounty 584.4 Sarasota/Manatee County 1 067.1 Subtota l $ 2 ,830.4 2 Gainesville Urbaniud Area s 94.6 Jacksonville Urban AJea 1 ,551.0 S u btotal s 1,651.6 Panama Cit y Urtaniz.ed Area s 6 1 5 3 3 Pensacola Urbanized Area 504.0 Fort Walton Beaeb Urbaniz.ed Area 538 2 TallahasseeRLeo n C ounty 601.5 Subtotal s 2,259.0 Palm Beach County $ 44 1 4 Broward County 2,466 3 St. Lucie County 43.7 Martin County 0 0 Indian River County 48 60 Subtotal s 2,602.7 Orlando Urban Area $ 1,8 39.0 5 Brevard Urban Area 165 7 Volusia County 199. 0 Ocala/Marion County 461.6 S ubto tal s 2 665.3 6 Miami Urbanized Area $ 6, 4 21.6 Hillsborough C ounty $ 2,216.8 7 Pinellas C ounty 835.2 Spring H ill/Hernando County 1 86 6 Pasco County 654.2 Subto t al s 3 892.8 AU Dis t ricts AUMPOs $22,323.4 8


Observali()DS and Future C()usiderati()DS As note d in earlier sections, the review of Florida's 25 MPO long range transportation plans revealed a number of differences in the fonnat and approach of the plans These differences necessita ted assumptions on CUTR's part in order to summarize the plans on a reasonably consistent basis. Among the differences that were addressed to d evelop the c um ulat ive financial shortfall are : the horizon year of the plans the base year of the cost estimates and revenue projections the consideration of operations and maintenance costs and r evenues, and the inclusion of cost estimates and revenue projections for transit facility and service i mpro vements Each of these considerations is discussed below. Horizon Years While adjustments were made to cost and revenue totals to arrive at a common horizon year of 2020, these adjustments may not accurately represent the total real improvement costs and available revenues that would be needed over the five year period (between years 2015 and 2020). Federal legislation (i. e ., the Metropolitan Plarming Rule-23 CFR, Part 450.322) re

Base Year Dollars Among the 25 plans, the majority of the cost and revenue totals were based on 1995 dollars. For consistency, those plans with costs and revenues developed on another base year were converted to 1995 dollars. The year in which a long range plan was developed would, logically, serv e as the base year for cost estimates and revenue projections. If it is assumed that future plan update cycles are consistent among all 25 MPOs, then it can be assumed that financial assessments would be made using a common base year. However, if achieving a common plan update cycle is not possible, adjustments to represent a common base year would not likely be the source of substantial inaccurac ies in formulating a cumulative financial shortfall estimate. Operations/Maintenance Considerations Many of the LRTPs discounted the costs associated with the operations and maintenance (0/M) of the transportation system, stating that the revenues needed to cover these costs were set aside, or "taken off the top" from some other funding category by the Florida DOT and/or the l ocal government jurisdi ction An accounting of 0/M costs and revenues was not, therefore, included in such plans. To the extent that tradeoffs between 0/M expenditures and capacity improvement expenditures are a strategic consideration in the allocation of funds, inclusion of 0/M projects in the cost and/or financial. resources components of plans would provide for a more detailed and potentially more accurate, financial shortfall analysis--for the individual MPO long range plan, as well as for a cumulative analysis. In addition to 0/M, costs and revenues associated with project components such as right of way, PD&E studies, preliminary engineering, final design construction engine ering inspection, etc. were not specifically identified in some plans A more comprehensive accounting for the various project phases and their cost/revenue components would allow for a more inclusive shortfall analysis. Such an accounting would also conform more closely with IS1EA's twelfth factor, which calls for the use of life-cycle costs in the evaluation of transportation alternatives Transit Considerations As a direct reflection of each MPO area's highw ay/ transit mix, the inclusion of transit improvement costs and revenues varies widely among the 25 plans. Therefore, no modifications to plan development procedures would be necessary. A more specific reconciliation of transit costs and revenues could, howe ver, provide a clearer picture of individual shortfall analyses, especially with regards to the state/federal funding category of "Arterial Roads/FIHS/Other Public Transportation." In some cases, the separation between highway and transit funding is not clear. 10


Othe, Considuations In addition efforts to reconcile needed improvement costs with specific revenue sources could provide a valuable assessment of various s hortfall components Currently, only a handful of the MPO plans identify the agency (e.g., stat e /federal government, county government, city government, transit agency, developer) responsible for funding each of the needed improvements included in the plan. Even fewer of the plans report this information in a manner that allows for a readily available assessment of financial shortfalls for particular agencies. The inclusion of a detailed breakdown of jurisdictional responsibility for implementation of identified improvements would allow for a detailed evaluation of the financial shortfall for various components of the transportation system, such as the FIHS, the SHS, county and city arterials, collector s local roads and transit. Long range plans for MPOs i n air quality maintenance areas are scheduled to be updated by February I, 1999, and by February I, 2001, for MPOs in air qual i ty attainment areas. Prior to the next round of plan updates, consideration should be given to the formulat ion of some general, long range plan development guide l ines that would result in format and content consistency among the plans Future cumulative financial shortfall analyses/needs assessments would be enhanced and would provide more valuable information if future plan updates we r e developed in anticipation of such a cumulative financial shortfall analysis. Toward this end, the MPOAC might consider working with the appropriate parties, including FOOT and FHW A to develop forma l guidelines for the financial elements of the MPO long range transportation plans. II


Appendix: Financial Shortfall Summary Sheets 12


' : Cumulative Financial Shortfall ./Significant Transit Shortfalls Hillsborough, Orlando, Broward & Miami _. MPOs $11 Billion


: Travel Choices , : ... ..! Major metropolitan areas have ambitious multi-modal plans; major funding shortfalls 9.-" -. .., ..! A number of smaller areas do not expect .. :w.4 transit to play a significant role : ..! Most areas deal witb the needs of the t transportation disadvantaged 9 ..! All plans consider bicycle/pedestrian G travel ""' &


FDOT District One MPOs 13


A D istrict One MPO Fund i ng Shortfalls (in millions of 1995 dollars through year 2020) $2,250.0 .---------------------------------------------, o Available Funding s1,75o o I 1 0 Needs Plan Costs I I $1,500 0 $1, 250 0 I I $1,000 0 $750.0 -1-1 $500 0 $ 250 0 1 1 $ 0 0 Lee County Naples (Collier County) Charlotte County -Punta Gorda Polk County TPO Sarasota/Manatee County


Lee County MPO Horizon Year: 2020 Base Dollars: 1995 Financial Shortfall: Projec-ted AvaUable. Revtnu es (in millions) FederaVState Revenues (do not include 0/M): Anerial Roads. Additional Transit Improvements, and TMA Set-aside $ 224.8 FlHS Improvements 21.4 Public Transit Improvements 53. 9 Interstate Improvements 91.0 Subtotal s 391 1 Local Rnenues: Lee County ($178 0 for OIM} $ 914 3 City of Cape Coral ($54 8 fo r 0/M} 184.0 City of Fort Myers ($ 15.1 for 0/M) 75.3 S u btotal $ 1.173.6 Tota l Revenues ($247.9 for 0/M; $1,316 8 for capital) s 1,564.7 Minus: 0/M Alloc ation $ (247 .9) Transit Allocation (134 .6 ) Additional Transit from Discretionary Funds ( 83.0) TDM,T SM, and Enhancements (50.0) Road Reconstruction/Bridge Replacement ,12221 Availab l e ror Highway Construction $ 922. 6 Estima ted Needs Assessment Costs (in millions) Needed Road Projects FOOT Projects $ 389.3 Lee County Projects 713.4 Fort Myers Projects 94 2 Cape Coral Projects 32.1 Total Cost of Needed Road Projects s 1,229.0 Transit Transit Cost (Capital ) s 48 .3 Transi t Costs (0/M ) NM Transit Subtotal 255 7 2 Park n-Ride Lots 1.0 6 bus shelters 0 3 Total Cost of Transit Projects s 257 0 Total2020 Needs A.S$tSSmt -nt Costs (including trans i t OIM) s 1,486.0 IS


Shortfalls for Highways aod Transit (in millions) Highways Funding Available for Highway Coostruction s 922.6 (Total Cost ofHwy. Needs) (1,229.1) Total Hwy. Shortfall (S 306.5) TraosU Funding Available for Transit Implementation s 217.6 (Total Cost of Transit Needs) 257.0 Total Transit Shortfall ($ 39.4) Total Shortfall (in millions) Projected Total Funding Available for Plan Implementation $ 1 ,140.2 Minus Estimated Total Needs Assessment Cost (1,486.1) Financial Shortfall ($306.5 + 39.4) (S 345.9) Additional Information: The FOOT and Lee County both set aside significant portions of their transportation revenues to cover operations and maintenance costs. Life cycle costs for specific roadway transportation improvements were, therefore, not addressed in the Needs Assessment of the Lee County 2020 LRTP. 0/M components are included for local (county/city) road project revenue projections, but not for state/federal revenue projections Transit 0/M costs are included in the 2020 Needs Assessment. A "Reserve List" of projects that were not included in the Financially Feasib l e Plan was compiled as part of the Plan. The Plan states that these Reserve Projects are as important as those actually comprising the Financially Feasible Plan, but have the potential for alternative or innovative financing solutions (e.g., ROW dedication, tolls, Municipal Services Benefit Unit). As such alternative funding sources are identified, the Reserve Projects will be transferred from the Reserve List to the Financially Feasible Plan. Approximately $189 million of Reserve Projects are identified, while the total cost of the projects in the Financially Feasible Plan is about $248 million less than the available funding sources However, approximately $248 million of this Financially-Feasible Plan Surplus is already set aside, leaving about $34 million to fund Reserve Projects. This should not be confused with the Needs Plan shortfall of $169.2 million 16


Naples (Collier County) MPO Horizon Year: 2020 Base Dollars: 1995 Financial Shortfall: Projected Available Reve nues (in millions) County Revenues s 402 0 State./Federal Revenues 180.3 Total Projected Revenues $ 582.3 Estimated N eeds Assessment Costs (in millions) 2020 Needs Assessment Cost (hwy.) $ 1,205.00 2020 Needs Assessment Cost (transit) 45.0 TotallOlO Needs Assessmen t Costs s 1,130.0 Shortfall (in millions) Projected total funding available for Plan Implementation s 582.3 Minus Estimated Total Needs Assessment Cost (1.239.0) Financial shortfall ($ 647 7) Additional Information : 0/M costs were not considered in the Needs Assessment, because 0/M costs are covered by separate funds set aside by FOO T and Collier County. Trans it 0/M costs are considered in Financially Feasible Plan, however. Currently, there is no fixed-route transit system in Collier County although transit is included in the Needs Assessment and revenue projections. The Plan does not i nclude any potential additional or alternative revenue sources. In projecting revenues, the County OMB did not assume the additional 5 cent LOGT, currently in effect, would be reenacted. If it were reenacted, an additional $117.0 million in revenues would become available to fund transportation improvements and services. The Plan identifies potential projects that could be funded with this source of funds, in the event it is reenacted. At the direction of the MPO Board, the 2020 population projection, on which the Plan was based, was reduced from 578,000 to 393,000. While the Financ ially Feasible Plan was reevaluated with this lower population projection it was decided that a new Needs Assessment would not be performed. Such an undertaldng could significantly reduce the breadth of projects needed, thereby reducing total Needs Assessment costs. Considering population-driven funding mechanisms, such as gas taxes, it is also possible that available funding would decrease based on the lower population projection. In the absence of such revisions, howeve r the original Needs Assessment cost estimateS and projections of available funding were used for this financial shortfall analysis. 17


Charlotte CountyPunta Gorda MPO Homon Year: 2020 Base Dollars: 1995 Financial Shortfall: Projeded Available Revenues ZOOI-lOlO (in millioos) I nte rstate $ o.o OtherFIHS 7.6 Other State 75.8 State Transit Match 18.3 County Capital 107.0 County Resurfacing/Bridge/Maintenance (0/M) 6.0 Total $ ll4.7 Estimated Needs Assessment Costs The Plan states that the Needs Assessment costs totaled "about $400 0 million." Shortfall (in millions) Projected funding available $ 214.7 Minus Estimated Total Needs Plan Cost ( 400.0) Financial Sbor1fall ($185.3) Additional Information: County Revenues include $6 0 million for "resurfacing/bridge maintenance" (0/M). The Needs Assessme nt includes a proposed transit route as a "miscellaneous transportation project." Furtb ermore, the Cost Feasible Plan includes transit projects, and county and state funding sources There are no City of Punta Gorda funds included i n the revenue projections, and no City needs are identified beyond committed improvements Also, adequate maintenance funds are available for City roads. A discussion of potential alternative funding sources is not evident in the Plan. 18


. Pol k County T ransp o r tation Planning Organization (fPO) Horizon Year: 2020 Base Dollars: "Current Dollars" (1995 dollars, per date of report) Fina ncia l S h ortfall: Projected Availab l e Revenue$ 2001-2020 (In millions) Capacity Related Projects Interstate $ 316.3 F l HS 80. 7 Arterial Roads 1 82 0 TSM 33.9 Enhancement 10. 0 Impact Fees ill Subtotal s 654 4 Transit Projects State Transit $ 67 1 Local Transit ill Subtotal s 134.2 Total Projected Revenues s 188.6 Esti mated Needs Aessment Costs (in millions) Total H ighway Needs/Capacity Road Improveme n t Costs s 1,277.6 Transit Costs Projected LAMTD Operating CosiS 68.0 Projected LAMTD Capital CosiS 13. 3 Proposed Intercity Bus Service Operating and Capital Costs 14.1 S u btotal Transit Costs s 95. 4 Total Estimated Needs P lan Cost s 1,373.0 Shortfall (in mUiions) Highway/Capacity Related Projects Tot a l Projec t e d Funding s 654.4 Minus Total Estimated CosiS ( 1.217.) Total Shortfall (S 623.2) Transit Total Projected Fund in& $ 134.2 Total Estimated COSIS 95.4 Total Surplus s 38.8 Total Financial Shortfall Projected Total Available Funding 788.6 Minus Estimated T o t al Needs Plan Cost {1,313.0} Total F'mancial Shortfall ($ 584.4) 19


Additional Information: The Plan states that, "Local gas tax revenues were projected as part of the financial resources analysis. It was determined, however, that virtually all of the expected revenue will be required for maintenance of the existing transportation system Therefore, no local gas tax revenues are identified as available for capacity improvements." It is assumed, therefore, that costs and revenues for 0/M are not included in the reported cost or revenue figures Proposed transit service s also include interrnodal connections, including high speed rai l and commuter rail stations. However, cost estimates and revenue projections for these intennodal connections do not appear to be included in the Plan. The $38.8 million transit surplus was identified by the TPO as funds for currently unidentifi ed transit needs. 20


S arasota/M anatee MPO H orizon Year : 2020 B a se Dollars: 1995 Financia l Shortf all: Ftc (in "'iiiiiiiOnS) Sarasota County FIHS s 1 2.0 ArtcrlaVfSM/Enhan(:ements 172 8 Mana t ee County F IHS 7.2 Arte rialfi'SMIEnhancements lli.2 Subtota l $ 318. 9 Local Governmtnt Revenues Saraso t a County s 115. 8 Man atu Co u nty 266.2 Subtot a l Total t Costs (in Manat ee s 142.1 s $ 1.0 md ( 0 .4) Total s 0 6 '(i n mi OPiiiii" Cost zuzo: S I 2020 Transit Needs Plan Costs (200 1 -2020 ) $ 244 .7 Tola l 2020 Needs s 2.nn' I (in "iiiiiiiOM) Minus Total Needs P:.: Cost s 946.2 (2.013 3) Financia l S h ortfall : ...... )) A d d itional Informati on: With the exception of Manatee County revenue s it doe s not appear that OIM costs and funding sources have been inc l uded in the Pl an Alternative revenue sources (i.e. tax rate increase, increase private sector funding, reallocation of existing revenues, mod i ficatio n o f ex i sting taxes) are di s cussed but o nly to provide support for MPO effortS to gain additional funding 2 1


FDOT District Two MPOs 22


fj District Two MPO Funding Shortfalls (in millions of 1995 dollars, thr oug h year 2 020) $2,500.0 .---------------------------------------------. s2.250.o o Needs Plan Costs o I $1,750. 0 $1,500.0 +----------------------------------1 s1.250.o I $1 ,000. 0 -1---------------------------1 mo.o I I $250. 0 t---------------------------1 $0. 0 +------__J Gainesville Urbanized Area Jacksonville Urbanized Area


Gainesville Urbanized Area MPO Horizon Y e2r: 2020 Base Dollars: I 993 Financial Shortfall: Projected -'ilable Revenues 2001-2020 (in millions) Federal Aid Highways (not on the SHS, including transit) s 6.7 Dedicated publi c transit funds (minimum transit guarantee) 13.3 SHS (including transit not in c luding Interstate funds 2U Total $ 83.2 Estimated Needs -'Ssessment Costs= $171.6 million Shortfall (in millions) Projected Total Available FWlding s 83.2 Minus estimated Total Needs Plan Cost (171.6) Financia l Shortfall ($ 88.4) Additional Information: "Current Projected Funds Available For Local Match" equal $0 It is stated that all future local transportation revenues are expected to be needed to maintain the existing transportation system and to assist with operation of the existing Regiona l Transit System No local funds will be available for new projects. Therefore i t is asswned that no 0/M funds are included in the available funding for the LRTP. Alternative funding sources were explored to supplement local revenue sources revenue for non state roadway projects and non-motorized travel modes. This included an increase in the LOGT, a UF student transportation service fee, and a UF parking decal fee increase. However, due to political uncertainties, none of these additional revenue sources was included in the development of the Cost Feasi bl e Plan. 24


Jacksonville U rban Area MPO Horizon Year: 2015 for Fi n ancially Feasible Plan (2020 for Needs Assessment) Base Dollars: 1995 Fi n ancial Shortfall: Proj..:ted Available Revenues 2001-2015 (for Capa

FDOT Di s trict Three MPOs 26


District Three MPO Funding Shortfalls (in millions of 1995 dollars, through year 2020) $ 1 250.0 o I $750. 0 !:i $500. o t---I mo.o I I so. o Panama Pensaco l a City Urbanized Urbanized Area Area Available Funding D N eeds P lan Costs Fort Walton Beach Urban i zed Area Tallahassee/ Leon County


Panama City Urbani. zed Area MPO Horizon Year: 2020 Base DoUars: 1995 Financial Shortfall: Projected Available Fund ina; (f()r System Improvements; in millions) State/Federal Sources s 89.7 Local Sources (local funds are totally com.mitted for 0/M 0 .0 Total s 89. 7 Estimated Needs Assessmtnt Costs$705.0 rriillion" Sbortlilll (in millions) Projected Total Funding available for capacity improvements throug)l2020 s 89.7 Minus Estimated Total Needs Plan Cost (705.0) Financial Short ran (S 615.3) Additional Information: Although a trolley system is operational in the MPO area, no specific transit projects (funding or costs) are included in the LRTP. Preliminary trolley routes were presented in the Plan however. Available Bay County funds did not total enoug h to be used for acti vities other than maintenance and paving (0/M) (LOGT). Therefore no local funds from Bay County were forecast to fund major capacity improvements in the Cost Feasible Plan/LRTP Furthermore, the MPO stated that 0/M costs and revenues were "taken off the top" and are not in cluded in the Plan. The possibility of using toll revenues to fund two major facility improvements (i.e., US 98 and the Hathaway Bridge) was explored but was rejected by the MPO Board. Tbe Cost Feasible Plan appears to have insufficient funding The available funding from 20012020 is $89.7 million, and the total cost of the Cost Feasible Plan for 2001-2020 is $114.9 million, for a difference of$25.2 million. 28


Pensacola Urbanized Area MPO Horizon Year: 2020 Base Dollars : 1995 Financial Shortfall: Proje cted Available R evenues (for System Im provemonts; 2001-2020 in millions) Federat and State Fund$ s 255.8 Local Funds (Escambia & Santa Rosatotally commined to 0/M) 0.0 Interstate. Funds 155.2 Proposed Toll Facilities Revenues 209.3 Total $ 620.8 (R(Nenues include $2.6 million for two transit express routes) Estimated Needs Assessment Costs= $1,124.8 million (lntludes .$2.6 million for two transllupress routes) Shortfall (in millions) Projec.tcd Total Funding available through 2020 s 620.8 Minus Estimated Total 2020 Needs Plan Cost ( 1,124.8} Fi nancial Shortfa n ($ 504.0) Additional Information: It was detennined that no local funds from Escambia or Santa Rosa County should be forecasted to fund major capacity improvement projects through the year 2020, as local funds are totally commined to 0/M. Alternative revenue sources (i.e., the second LOGT, the Ninth Cent Gas Tax, the Local Government Infrastructure Surtax, and Transportation Impact Fees) could add an additional $352.1 million in r evenue through 2020 lbis would bring the total available funding to $972.9 million from 2000-2020. However, the MPO did not approve the use ofthese alternative revenue sources for the development of the 2020 Plan. A discussion on existing state and federal revenue sources states that the various fuel taxes are the primary revenue source for transportation improveme nts and maintenance throughout the state. Furthennore, the MPO confinned that costs and revenues for 0/M (highway component) were "taken off the top" and are not included in the Plan. Two express bus routes are included in the Financially Feasible Plan with costs ($2.6 million ) and revenues ($2.6 million), according to the MPO being accounted for in the Needs Assessment cost estimates and revenue projections The executive summary states that a long range transit srudy was completed as part of the Plan. 29


Fort Walton Beach Urbanized Area MP.O Horizon Year: 2015 Base Dollars: 1992 Financial Shortfall: Proje

Additional Information: The 2020 Plan Update is underway, but financial infonnation is not yet available. An analysis of revenues that could be available from additional sources is included in the Plan. "Possible Revenues" have been identified (i.e., LOGT expansion, Local Govemment Cooperative Assistance Program, Ninth Cent Gas Tax, tolls, impact fees perfonnance standards, bond issues, and Local Government Infrastructure Surtax), but were not considered in the Plan due to general implementation uncertainties. According to the MPO, no transit funding or costs are i ncluded in the financial analysis The Plan represents roadwa y capacity projects only. 31


Tallah assee-Leon C ounty MPO H orizon Year: 2020 Base Doll a rs: J 995 Financial Shortfa ll : Projt(:ted Available Revenues 2 00 1 -2020 (for 1\fajor Transportation Proje cts; in miiJions) Federal/State Funds FIHS s 96.3 ConsiTUction/ROW 141.1 PD&EIDesign 25.7 Subtotal s 263. 1 Local Funds City $ 58.8 Co u nty 70.1 Advance Fund 28.2 "FSU,, 7 8 Sub t otal $ 1 64.9 Total Funds s 428.0 Shortfall (in millions) Estimated Needs Assessment Costs $1,029.5 miUion Projected Total Funding Available s 428.0 Minus Estimated Total Needs Plan Cost C I 029.Sl Financial Shortfall (S 601.5) Ad d i ti onal Information: According to the MPO, alternative revenues were considered but were not i ncluded, due to general uncertainties associated with their implementation. After the Financial Resources Technical Memo was approved the County rescinded their impact fee ordinance, eliminating $80 0 million in City and County revenue for Plan implementation. The Plan includes "Advance Fund i ng" of $28.2 million for FDOT improvements through the year 2000. The s e improvements represent the conunitted projects through year 2000. The Needs Plan includes corridors for transit improvements. These improvements are listed as multim oda l enhancements and were described by the MPO as corridor improvements of either express bus service or s horter headways for existing bus service. According to the MPO, 0/M costs and revenues were not i n cluded in the Plan, as they w e re "taken off the top" for local state, and f e deral categories 32


FDOT D istrict Fou r MPOs 33


$5.500.0 $$.250.0 $$.000 0 $4,750. 0 $4,500.0 $4,250. 0 $4,000. 0 $3,750 0 $3.500.0 $3,250.0 $3,000 0 $2, 750.0 $2,500 0 12.250 0 $2,000. 0 $1 750.0 $ 1,500.0 $1,250 .0 $1,000 0 $750.0 $500 .0 $250.0 50. 0 Palm Beach County District Four MPO Funding Shortfalls (in millions of 1995 dollars, through year 2020) Broward County Available Funding 0 Needs Plan Costs St.Lucie County Martin County Indian River County


Palm Beach County MPO Horizon Year: 2015 (subsequently through 2020see below) Base Dollars: 1995 Financial Shortfall: Proje

Additional Information: Total costs and revenues exclude FIHS and Turnpike projects. The Plan states that FIHS is funded as part of the FIHS Cost Feasible Plan and that Turnpike and Turnpike interchanges funded by tolls and bonds. The MPO confirmed that the "Future Directions" document reflects the MPO's 2001-2020 revenue projections (five years additional revenue), and Needs do not change beyond those in Needs Plan (through 2015), due to buildout in 2016. This also appl ies to the transit costs/ revenues. Use transit figures from "Future Direct ions." The local municipalities (37 in study area) primarily ut ilize local transportation funds for 0/M. The local street improvements do not significantly affect the Plan and are not included in the future highway construction revenue projections. Federal, state, county, and municipa l revenues are dedicated to operations and maintenance within individual jurisdictions. Agencies have separate revenue sources dedicated specifically to 0/M. Therefore, it is assumed that none of the costs/revenues reported in the pial) are reserved for 0/M. The Plan states that no new revenue sources are being proposed for the 2015 Cost Feasible Plan, since currently projected revenue sources will provide for reasonable operating conditions. The MPO confirmed that the additional five years of revenue from the "Future Directions" document do not represent "new revenue sources," but rather further projections of the same funding sources. Tri-Rail improvements are assumed in the Plan to be covered by Tri-Rail and do not include a County contribution to Tri-Rail. Such costs are additional to the transit costs included in the Plan. Also, transit operating revenue includes some funds for operati ng feeder buses to Tri-Rail stations. 36


B roward County MPO Horizon Year: 20 1 5 Bas e D o lla rs: 1994 Financial Shortfall : Projected :Available Revenues ( i n m i llions) Highway SHSfTransit Capacity Improvements $ 551.1 TMA 168.0 Turnpike 64.0 County Transportation Trust Fund 180. 7 Municipal 31.9 Developer 74.4 Subtotal s 1,070.1 Transit SHSfTransit Capacity Improvements 1352 FTA 1242 County 741.3 S u btota l s 1,000.7 Total Rennu es S Z,o70.8 Estimated Nee d s Assts.Smen t Costs (In mlUlons) H i ghway System Costs $ 1,075.4 Transit Sys tem Costs Fixed Guideway System $ 600.0 Bus System 2,1 4 7.0 Ancillary Facilities 48 0 Subtota l s 2 795.0 T otal Estimated Needs Assessme n t Cost s s 3,870. 4 Short r an (in million s ) Projected Tota l Availab l e Funding $ 2 070.0 Minus Estim at ed To t al Needs Plan Cost (3 870.4) Financia l Shortfall (S 1 ,800 .4) Additiona l I nformatio n : The Plan sta tes th a t highway costs are composed of construction and right of-way. The MPO verified tha t highway 0/M costs and revenues are not included in the Plan. 0/M co s ts and reven u es are included for transit, h owever. The P l an states that it would cost $912.0 million to operate and maintain the curre n t transit system through 2015. 37


The Plan states that about $85.0 million would be spent by TriRail in Broward CoWtty for Tri Rail improvements. The MPO confirmed however, that the Plan does not include these or other Tri-Rail costs or revenues The MPO also stated that while the CoWtty does provide about $1 million to Tri-Rail in the form of matching funds, it is not reflected in the Plan. A discussion of alternative funding sources was not evident in the P lan 38


St. Lucie MPO Horizon Year: 2020 Base Dollars: 1994 Financial Shortfall: Projected Available Revenues 2000-2020 (for Roadway Projects; In mllllons) State/Federal Re. venues Roadwayffransit Capacity Improvements $ 107.3 Minus minimum transit improvements (16.9}1 Equals maximum roadway improvements s 90.4 Lotalllevenues Local Impact Fees $ 30.4 Total Revenues s 120.8 (I) There is no fiXed-route transit system in St. Lucie County. The Plan states that the $16.9 million in revenues for transit "is not addressed in this planning effort." Of the $137 .7 million in total revenues, then, $120.8 million i s available to fund Plan improvements. Estimated Needs Assessment Costs= $163.1 million Shortfall (in millions) Projected Total Available Funding $ $120.8 Minus Estimated Total Needs Plan Cost $ Financial Shortfall $ (42.4) Additional Information: 0/M costs and revenues are not discussed in the Plan. In June, 1995, the St. Lucie County Conunission passed one cent of the LOOT. Potential revenue from this LOOT is not, however, included in the LRTP, since it is not clear how much of the revenue will be devoted to building versus maintaining roadways. The forecasts conservatively assume that no gas tax revenues will be used for capital expenditures. The only source oflocal revenue considered in this analysis is from road impact fees. Alternative funding sources are not discussed in the Plan. 39


Martin County MPO Horizon Year: 2020 Base Dollars: 1991 (Costs); 1992 (Revenues) Financial Shortfall: Projtcted AvailabJe Revenues (in millions) State Projects s 126.7 County Projects ru Total s 199.6 Estimated Needs Assessment Costs (in miltions) State Projects $ 126.7 County Projects ru Total s 199.6 Shortfall (in millions) Projected Total Funding AvaiL1ble $ 199.6 Minus Estimated Total Needs Plan (Roadway) Cost (199 .6 } Financial Shortfall s 0.0 Additional Information: The Plan covers 1998-2020 (22 years) Revenues for FY 1994-1997 are committed for projects in the TIP and are not available for 2020 plan improvements. The Plan states that based upon the 2020 Needs Plan over $282 million of roadway improvements will be required to support growth that is expected as a result of the adopted Martin County Land Use Plan. According to the MPO, however, the difference between the $282 million and the $ f 99.6 million ($82.4 million) represents the cost to construct two bridges in the county, which were funded with revenues from the 1993-1998 TIP, which were not reported in the Plan. The result is a balanced Needs Plan, with no fmancial shortfall. There is no transit system in Martin County and no transit element in the LRTP However, the Martin County MPO, in cooperation with the FOOT District Four Office is currently working on a long-range plan update and transit component. A discussion of 0/M costs or revenues is not evident in the Plan County funds are noted as being available for the construction of new facilities, and there is no discussion of either state/federal or county funds being used for 0/M. A discussion of alternative funding sources is not evident in the Plan. 40


India n R i ve r County MPO H orizon Y e a r : 2020 B a s e D ollars: I 994 Fin a n c i al S hortfall: Projected Available Revenues (in millions) State/Fede ral Funding s 86 61 Local Funding 138.8 Subtotal S 22S.4 Minus set as ide for 0/M of existing system ()OS !} Total s 1 2 0.3 1 An additional S 16.6 million is set aside for transit improvements. Esti mated Needs A s sessme n t C osts ( i n millions) Total cost of2020 Needs P l an (r o adway only including 0/M) $ 183.1 Minus cost of five c ommitted improvements in current TIP 1S.7) Net cost or Nteds Plan s 167.5 Shortfall (In milli o M) Projected Tot a l F u nding A v ai l able s 120.3 Minus Estimated Total (net) 2 0 20 Needs P l an C o st Financial Shortfall $ (47 .1) Additi o n al Informat i o n: The P lan stat e s that all local gas taxes are dedicated to the maintenanc e and s afety of the e xisting system. The MPO confinn e d that these funds are not a v a il a b le for the 0/M of the Needs Plan projects The Need s Plan Project Cost spreadsheet stat es that annual maintenan c e i s included in the cost estimate for each project. A one cent sales ( i nfrastructure) tax currently in force, is due to expire in the year 2004. Two alt e rnat ive revenue sourc e s tha t could be used to help cover shortfalls ar e note d : the Ninth Cent Gas Tax and additional Lo c al Op tion Gas Taxes. The Plan states the s e two alternative revenue sources could hel p o ffset the loss in r e venue tha t will be experienced w hen the infrastructure sales tax expires. A dolla r amount that cou l d be generated by these sources is n ot included. State reven u es are reported as "Total STP Funds Minus Trans i t All ocations," i ndicating tha t trans i t is not part of the LRTP. Furthennore, no transit projects are included i n the Needs Assessme n t or the Financ i ally Feas i b l e project lists. 41


FDOT Di s trict Five MPOs 42


$6,750 0 $6,500 0 $6,250.0 $6,000 0 $5,750.0 $5,500.0 $5,250 0 $5,000.0 $4,750 0 $4,500.0 s.250.o $4,000 0 $),75 0.0 $3, 500.0 ... w $3, 250.0 $3,000 0 $2,750.0 $2,500 0 $2,250 0 $2,000.0 $1,750.0 $1,500.0 $1, 250.0 $1, 000.0 $1 50.0 $500.0 $250.0 $0.0 Orlando Urban Area District Five MPO Funding Shortfalls (in millions of 1995 dollars, through year 2020) Brevard Urban Area Available Funding IJ Needs Plan Costs Volusia County Ocala I Marion County


Orlando Urban Area MPO Year: 2020 Base Dollars: Present Value Dollars (1996 date of report) Financial Shortfall: Projected Available Revenues 2001-2020 ( i n miUions) Funding Category State/Fed Loca l Other Commitments1 Total FIHS Interstate s 805 9 s 0 $ 0 ($ 0) s 805.9 Orange County State/Federal $ 471.4 s 0 0 (S 75.4) $ 396.0 County N / A 454.3 0 ( 234 0) 220 3 City of Orlando NIA 102 3 0 ( 86 1) 16 2 County StatciFedcral $ 170. 4 so 0 ($ 27.3) $ 143. 1 FIHS Non In t erstate 99.4 0 0 ( 0) 99.4 County N / A 1 61.2 0 ( 51.1) 103 5 Osceola Cou nty State/Federal s 86.8 $ 0 $ 0 ($ 1 3 9 ) $ 72 9 FIHS Non Interstate 1.3 0 0 ( 0) 1.3 County NIA 59. 9 0 ( 57.4) 2.5 OrlandoMPO s 168.6 so $ 0 ($ 50 .6) $ 1 1 8.0 LYNX s 207 9 $ 431.9 $ 1 53. 2 ($ 0} s Subtotal s 2,011.6 s 1,209.6 $153.2 (S 602.4) s 2,772.1 Additional Revenues Private Investment and Tolls s 1 123 0 Addi ti onal FederaVState Funds Associated with lnterntate 4 Improvements 969.3 Total R e venues $4, 864.4 (I) C o mmitments in clude funds to comple t e committed improvements, funds for 0/M, and funds committed to other uses, such as transit. Estimat e d N e eds Assessment Coots ( i n millions) Roadway Needs Costs $4,1 86.3 Transit Needs Costs (incl u ding 0/M) 2,554. 6 Total Needs Costs s 6,740 9 Shortf a ll (In miiUons) Projected Total Available Funding $4,864.4 Minus Estimated Total Needs Plan Cost Financial S h ortfall (S 1,876.5) Additional Information: Transit 0/M costs are included i n the Needs Assessment Costs and reven ues analysis Roadway 0/M costs are not d i rectly included, as the FOOT bas assured tha t 0/M funds will be availab le to support the State System, and 0/M fund availability for the local system are difficult to project. Indirec t ly, however, funding for roadway 0/M was considered in that historical 0/M set aside amounts were subtracted from t h e funds identified as a v ai lab le for Plan implementation. Total roadway 0/M costs were estimated to be $99 2 million for the Needs Assessment improvements. 44


The "commitments" column, in the tab l e above, includes funds set aside for 0/M. Transit improvement costs cover entire 400 bus system and light rail system The Plan states that several strategies were considered to offset the funding shortfall. The most likely source of additional funding is noted as an infrastructure sunax spec ifically dedicated to implementing the Plan. The Plan states that to effective l y fund the shortfall, all three counties in three urban area will have to implement the surtax by year 2005 In Seminole and Osceola Counties, the surtax will represent a continuation of current taxes. The surtax is considered to be a reasonable alternative funding source to cover the shonfall. According to the MPO, the surtax (a one cent sales tax) would generate $1.92 billion, resulting in a slight plan surplus. 45


Brevard Urban Area MPO Horizon Year: 2020 Base Dollars: 1993 Financial Shortfall: ProjeC-ted Available Revenues Q.n millions) Non-Roadway Capacity Roadway Capa c ity Projects (1,2) Projects Total FederaVState Revenues Interstate Funds $ 0 0 $ 56.5 $ 56.5 Other State /federal Funds (Transit) 42.7 ns.3 331.0 Subtotal s 42.7 s 344.8 s 387.5 T otal Local Revenues 173.4 1 23.4 296.8 Total Revenues Sl16.1 $468.2 s 684 3 (I) State/federal revenue projections do not include 0/M funds; sufficient funds ha v e been reserved for these purposes. Non-roadway capacity proje cts for state/federal funds includes transit projects only. (2) Local r evenue projections for non roadway capacity projects include funds for 0/M, transit administration and other uses. Estimated Cost of Unfunded "Needs" (in millions) Major Investment and Interchange Projects s 27.5 Interstate Improvement Projects 127.4 Total Unfunded Needs and Financial Shortfall s 154.9 Estimated "ModiOed Needs Assess ment" Costs (in millions) $684 3 Total Funded Projects + $154.9 Unfunded Projeeu $83 9.2 Total "Nuds" Shortfall (in millions) Projected T otal Available Funding s 684.3 Minus Estimated Total .. Modified Needs Assessment Cost s (839 .2) Financial Shortfall ($ 154 .9) Additional Information: According t o the Brevard Urban Area MPO, a Needs Assessmenl was not completed Rather, a "Modified Needs Assessment Process" was conducted. This involved a process whereby the costs of needed projects, believed to be feasible (operationally, politically, fmancially), were subtracted from the total reven ues projected to be available through the P lan horizon. Projects were identified until funds were depleted. Total unfunded needs were identified by the MPO. Addit ionally $121.5 mill ion in "Substantially Priva te l y Funded Projects" are identified that may be constructed, depending on private development. These are not be trea ted as unfunded needs. Identification of pote ntial alternative revenue sources is not evident in the Plan. 46


Volusia County MPO H orizon Year: 2020 Base Dollars: 1995 F inancial Shortfall: 200I-2020 Revenue/Cost Summary (in millions) Program/ Projected Rt\lenu tS Estimated Improvem ent Type (Fed, State Local) Costs Balance lnterstate s 134.5 $ 316.0 ($ 181.5) FIHS 22.3 41.2 ( 18.9) Other Stat elf AHS 230 3 162.2 68. 1 Non-State 111.2 175.0 (63. 8) Operations/Maintenance 211.2 211.2 0 Public Transportation 339.8 339.8 0 Bicycle/Pedestrian 8 6 11.5 (2.9) TSM 4.4 4.4 0 TOM 2.0 2 .0 0 Safety 8.2 8.2 Q Total $1,072. 5 $ 1,271.5 ($ 1 99.0) Shortfall (in miiUons) Projected Total F unding Available s 1,072.5 Minus Estimated Total Needs Plan Cost (I ,271.5) Financial Shortfall ($ 199.0) Additional Information: From 201 J-2020, the majority of the financial shortfall is related to the Interstate 4 widening but the MPO anticipated that additional Interstate funding wi ll become available in the 20 I I through 2020 time frame to fund the 1-4 widening. The Executive Summary states that roadway operating conditions are presently viewed as generally good, and although increased funding for P l an improvements is available to the local governments, immediate implementation of these alternative revenue sources is not deemed necessary. Also, the MPO has endorsed the concep t of local property tax rate increase s to fund the expansion of the transit system. The Plan states that municipal revenues are primarily allocated to the 0/M of local and urban collector roads and are not available to fund the capacity i mprov ements of the Plan. 0/M revenues (above) are for the County system only FOOT has set aside 0/M funds and did not i nclude 0/M revenues in their revenue projection for system improvements. Transit is included in the Plan The Plan states that the High Speed Rail System is being funded by FDOT and i s not covered in the Plan. 47


Ocala /Marion County MPO Horizon Year: 2020 Base Dollars: 1995 Financial Shortfall: -Projected Available Fund lag 2001-2020 (In millions) State County City of Oe.ala Total 0/MRevenue $ o.o s 356.5 s 38. 2 s 394 .7 Capacity Revenue 2S4.Q 122 0 w ill1 Total Revenue $254.0 s 478.5 s 102.1 $ 834.6 Estimated Needs Assessment CO

FDOT District Six MPO 49


Miami Urb a niz ed Area MPO Horiz on Ye a r : 20 1 5 Base Dollars : 1995 Fin ancial Shortfall: Pro.i ected A vailable R e v e nues (for Cao!2J;t Re!Jited Im p r ovements 2001-2 0 1 5 in millions) lnterstate .$ 241.0 FIH S 132. 0 A nerials 803. 0 S t a t e Transi t 185.0 TMAs 246.0 lruermodai/Rai l 240 0 Impact Fees 161.0 Local Taxes 1.m. 2 Total C a p a ci t y R evenue $ 3 1 26 .0 Pro jected Availabl e Revenues (for 0/M; lo millions) Transit 0/M Revenue $ 4 ,116.0 Highw a y 0/M Revenue 1 ,884. 0 Total 0/M Revenue $ 6 000.0 To tal Revenue $ 9 126.0 EsHmatc:d Needs AS5e5Smenc Cos ts (tn mUiions) C a pac i ty Needs Transit capacity Needs s 3 ,514.6 Highway Capacity Needs 2,839.7 0/MNeeds Transit 0/M Needs 5,683 0 HighwayOIM 1 ,9j7.0 T olal Nted s Pla n Costs s 13,954.3 SbortfaU (in m illions) Projected TotaJ Ava ilable Funding $ 9,1 2 6 Minus estimat ed Total Needs Plan Cost ( 13.954. 3) Financial Shortfall ($ 4 828 .3) Additional Informatio n : T ran s it imp r ovements include a c quisition of buses and generalized improvements by corridor, s u ch as bus a nd rail improvements and intermodal stations (including high-speed rail stat i ons) The Plan li s ts add i tion a l roa d way improveme n t s th a t are t o be funded by private s ector funds. Some transit projects li st a l ternative fundi n g sources (i.e., FT A S e c tion 3 discretionary funds, dedica t ed toll re ceipt s and toll surcharg e s, issuance o f bonds, special ai rp o rt-se ap o rt transit fares) The use of o th er al t e rnati ve fundi n g sources is me n tioned as a possib l e necessity. According to the MPO, the LRTP does no t inve s tigate alt e rna ti ve funding sourc es i n any depth. 51


FDOT D istrict Seve n MPO s 52


1:1 $10, 000.0 $9, 750 0 $9 500 0 $9,250 0 19,000 0 18,750.0 $8,600 0 $8,250 .0 I $8,000.0 1--' $7,750 0 $7,500 0 $7,000.0 $8,750.0 $8,500 0 $5,000 0 $5,750 0 $5,500 0 -1---1 $ 5.000 0 $<1,750 0 $<1, 500.0 $<1,250 0 $<1,000 0 $3,750 0 $3 500 0 t===l $3 250 0 $3,000 0 $2,750 0 1---1 $2,500 0 12,250 0 11.750 0 $1,500 0 $ 1 ,250 0 11,000.0 $750 0 $500.0 $250.0 Hillsborough County District Seven M PO Funding Shortfalls (in millions of 1995 dollars, t hrough year 2020) P in ellas County Available Funding ONeeds Plan Costs Spring Hill I Hernando County Pasco County


Hill s b o r o ugh County MPO H orizon Year: 2015 Bas e Dollars : 1995 Fin ancial S h o rtfall : Projected Avail able Rev enues (In millio ns) Revenue So urce 1995 2006-2015 Inte rs uue/NHS $284.0 $ 617 .4 T MA Funds 51.8 4 9 .4 O the r Arte ria l Funds 228.3 225. 5 Exp ress way Funds 45. 0 1 3 8 0 Hillsboro u g h County 447 7 524 3 City of Tampa 161.9 171.6 Temple 9 .2 9 6 Plant City 14.0 18. 3 00..-FIHS F unds 0.0 93. 5 l nt ermoda l Funds 23. 8 52 6 A ltern ative L oca l F unds (11F) 30 .0 133.0 FTA 27. 1 8 3 6 HARTLine 353 0 651.3 O the r S tat e & Federal 619.7 ill.J. Subtotals $2,295.5 s 3 415 4 Total Projected Revenues (1995-2015) s 5,710.9 Projected Av ailable Revenues (in millions) Revenue 1995-2005 2006 2015 Federal $ 382. 9 $ 77 0 7 Srete 851.6 99 8 8 Local 1.060.7 S ubtotals $2,.295.3 s 3,415. 7 T o tal Proj ected Re> enues (1995-2015) s 5, 710. 9 Estimated Needs Assessme n t Costs (In millions ) Highwa y s 3,729 5 Tnnsi t 1 610.3 Ocher Total s 7,377.7 Shortfall (lo mill ion>) Pro jected Total Available Funding s 5,7 1 0 9 Minu s e stimated Total Needs Assessment Cost 12.m.2} Fintnc.ill Shortfall ($ 1,666 8)


Additional Information: The Plan reports a $1,688.5 shortfall representing the difference between the Needs Assessment costs and the Adopted Plan (i.e., the Financially Feasible Plan) costs. The difference between the available revenues and the cost of the 2015 Needs Assessment is the financial shortfall reported in this Summary Sheet. The cost and revenue totals represent 1995-2015 totals. The Plan does not break out the 1996 2000 amounts that represent commined projects. Currently, there is neither existing nor committed rail transit service in Hillsborough County. The Plan's transit element, however, includes a proposed regional rail system, with costs based on Hillsborough County Regional Roil Study. While extensive local bus service will remain, the focus of the 2015 Plan is to serve major passenger movements and longer distance transit trips with the rail system. "Other" costs include 0/M and TSM and interrnodal improvements. The Plan states that all future Plant City and Temple Terrace transportation revenues would primarily be used for maintenance, resurfacing, and "traffic operations" type improvements and that overall, approximately $2,037.9 million (36 percent) of the total revenues for the next 20 years have been set aside for such activities. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is assumed in the Plan as an alternative mechanism to fund the rail system. It is estimated that TIF would generate $163 million over the 20 year Plan period. TIF involves additional LOOT of up to five cents per gallon as protection for TIF bondholders. The Plan also assumes FT A will fund 50% of the cost of new buses and trains. ss


P i nellas County MPO Horizon Year: 2015 Base Dollars: 1994 for highway costs/revenues ; transit dollars reflect specific years in question F inancial Shortfall: Projected Availab l e R evenutS2001-2015 (in millions) Intrastate s 93.1 Other State 431.1 County 162 3 Additiona( County Revenues 94. 5 Municipal 46. 0 Transit Total s 1,398.7 Estimated Netds AsstSsment Costs (in miiUons) Intrastat e s 832.7 Other State 294 6 County 245.7 Municipal 46.0 Transit S89A Total $2,008.4 Shortfall (in millions) Projected Total Availab l e Highway and Transit Funding $ 1,398 7 Minus Total Estimated Needs Plan Costs (2.008 ,4) Financial SbortfaU ($ 609.7) Additional Info r m ation: Costs/revenues for 1996-2000 highway improvements are assumed to be exclud e d from the Needs Assessment cost and funding projections, as indicated by "TIP" designation in "Cost" column of Table I. Cost proje c tions inc l ude cap i tal and 0/M. Total costs for all modes were deve l oped including roadway, bicycle, pedestrian facilities, and transit services. The Plan notes that the State has certified that 0/M of the Plan will be included and addressed as part of the FOOT's 2020 Florida Transportation Plan State revenues include $60.9 million for TSM Projects. County revenues include $7.8 million for TSM Projects, $8 3 million for Bicycle Projec ts, and $10.9 million for Pede s trian Projects The additional $94.5 million in revenues for County roadways are from the continuation of the "Penny for Pinellas" sales tax, which was approved by Pine ll as County voters on Marc h 25, 1997. The Plan includes the preservation of the fixed route bus system's current level of service, as well as the "conceptual adoption" of a guideway tran s it system. The Plan states that the mode and alignment of the system have not been determined As such, system costs are not provided. However a Plan policy states that a Major Investment Study will be conducted in the near future 56


to determine whether a guideway system would be a cost effective way to address mobility. Titis implies that, while the Plan considers the guideway system, neither the Needs Plan nor Cost Feasible Plan accounts for such a system, financially For planning purposes, the Plan's transit system includes the Fixed guideway system, including mapped routes and stations. According to the MPO, minor changes to some Needs Plan improvements have resulted in a slight decrease in the total cost of the highway component of the total Needs Assessment cost. New costs are not yet finalized. Also, approximately $68 million is available for currently unidentified intermodal capital projects needs Some of these funds cou ld be used to fund the initial implementation of the g uideway system, if it is determined to be a feasible undertaking. It was recommended that these funds not be applied to the fmancial shortfall, as relative needs have not yet been identified. 57


S p r ing Hill / H e rnando Cou nty MPO . Horizon Yea r : 2015 Base Doll ars: 1993 F i nancia l S hortfall : CoJts versus Revenue s ummary, Neecb PI.Jn/Policy Constrained P1an (i.n millions) Estlmoted Proj:ted Cosu Revt .Dues Difference State Hwy. System Jnterstate Roads s 59.5 s 0.0 (S 59.5) Thmpike (N. Parkway) 115.7 115 7 0 0 lnrrastate Roads 36.7 36. 7 0.0 Other Sta t e Roads w. w (55 .0) Total S t a te Hwy. System s 281.0 s 166.5 ($ 114.5) County Roads County $ 35,4 s 34.6 ( $0 8) Developer Built ill .w. 0.0 T otal County Road> s 46.9 s 46.1 ($0.8) Total Other Ruds $0.0 2& 2& TotAl All Roads s 327.9 212.7 (115.2) Tran.sic 24.1 u (15 .9) Total S 3Sl.O SllOJ ($ 131.1) Ncte: No c ity revenues are (1\lal/ab/efor major roadway projects S h ortran (In millions) Projected Total Available Funding $ 220.9 Minus Estimated Total Need> Plan/Policy Constrained Plan Cost (352.0) Financial Shortf.a11 ($ 131.1) Addi t ional I nformatio n : Maintenance unit costs were develop e d for state and non-state roads, but the Plan s tates that revenues and costs consider only capita l expansion, no 0/M. The Plan states that a fixed-route transit system is not included in the Cost Feasible Plan due to its small modal share and high costs. The MPO has adop ted the position to reduce the transit set aside funding to allow the funding of an additional highway project. TD services will be enhanced in the near furore. The position is taken that transit funds would best be spent after the completion of the TDP, set for mid 1 996 The transit costs and revenues analyses included in the plan are for the implementation of transit service in 2010 and are, therefore more for planning purposes 5 8


The Plan calls for an increase in the LOGT revenues to fund transportation projects. An analysis of additional r e venue amounts was not evident in the Plan. 59


P a s c o C oun ty MPO Horizon Y ear: 2015 B ase DoU a rs: 1993 Fi n a nci al Shortfa ll: Costs versus Revenue, P o l icy (N eeds ) Plan 2001-2015 ( i n millions) Estimat e d Projected Diffe r ence Cos ts Revenues Stat e Roads Interstate $ 180.1 $ 54. I ($ 126.0) Turnpike (1'1. Su n coast Parkway) 1 57.6 157.6 0 0 Intrastate Roads 120.4 120 4 0.0 Other State Roads 2 71.1 38. 1 {233.0) Total State Road< s 729.1 s 370 2 ($ 358.9) County R o a d s C o unty Roads s 273.1 $ 19 5. 9 ($ 77.2) Developer Built Roads 30 0 30.0 Q.Q Total County Roads s 303.1 s 225 9 (77.2) Other Roads New Port Richey $4.4 2 6 ($1. 8 ) D a de City $6.3 o.o (6.3) Zephyrhills 2,2 :1-Q u Total Other Roads s 11 .6 s 5.6 (S 6.0) Tota l S t ate Transit 31.3 19.8 (.!1J) Total All Roads & T ransi t 51,081.2 $ 621.5 (S 459 7) S h o rtfall (in m i llions) Projected Total Avai l able Funding $ 6 2 1.5 Minus Estima ted Total Cost of Nee d s Pl a n Finan

The Plan further states that the County has the option of increasing the LOGT if additional 0/M revenu es are needed. T ransit improvements are defined as improvements to the existing TO program. Fixed-route transit was found not to be cost feasible 61


Download Options

Choose Size
Choose file type
Cite this item close


Cras ut cursus ante, a fringilla nunc. Mauris lorem nunc, cursus sit amet enim ac, vehicula vestibulum mi. Mauris viverra nisl vel enim faucibus porta. Praesent sit amet ornare diam, non finibus nulla.


Cras efficitur magna et sapien varius, luctus ullamcorper dolor convallis. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Fusce sit amet justo ut erat laoreet congue sed a ante.


Phasellus ornare in augue eu imperdiet. Donec malesuada sapien ante, at vehicula orci tempor molestie. Proin vitae urna elit. Pellentesque vitae nisi et diam euismod malesuada aliquet non erat.


Nunc fringilla dolor ut dictum placerat. Proin ac neque rutrum, consectetur ligula id, laoreet ligula. Nulla lorem massa, consectetur vitae consequat in, lobortis at dolor. Nunc sed leo odio.