TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ALL Counties MINUTE ORDER Page 1 of 1 ALL Districts Transportation Code, 201.991 provides that the Texas Department of Transportation (department) shall develop a Unified Transportation Program (UTP) covering a period of 10 years to guide the development of and authorize construction of transportation projects. The Texas Transportation Commission (commission) has adopted rules in Title 43, Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 16, governing the planning and development of transportation projects. The rules include guidance regarding the development of the UTP and any updates to the program, as well as public involvement requirements. The 2015 UTP was approved by the commission on August 28, 2014 in Minute Order 114027. On October 16, 2014 the department conducted public meetings across the state via WebEx, and a public hearing was held on November 6, 2014 to receive comments and testimony concerning the proposed updates to the 2015 UTP. The updates to the 2015 UTP, as shown in Exhibit A, include revised allocations based on revised federal funding levels in fiscal year 2015 and funding authorizations on priority projects. The updates also address revisions to project specific program lists and other minor revisions or technical corrections. Exhibit B, which is included for informational purposes only, contains a report on current transportation development credit balances and all administrative revisions previously incorporated into the UTP, including applied carry-over amounts from fiscal year 2014 and the reconciliation of category 5 (Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement) and category 7 (Metropolitan Mobility and Rehabilitation.) IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED by the commission that the updates to the 2015 UTP, as shown in Exhibit A, are hereby approved. Submitted and reviewed by: Dtor, Transportation Planning nd Programming Minute Number Date Passed

REVISION DATE 11/7/14 EXHIBIT A 2015 UTP November Update - Funding Adjustments Summary (Amounts in millions) /MPO/TMA Category Description Fiscal Year Adjusted Amount Post Public Meeting Adjustments Austin 3 SH 130 Concession FY 2015 $6,500,000 3 SH 130 Concession FY 2017 ($6,500,000) Sum Corpus Christi 12 Cat 12 Strategic Priority FY 2015 $175,000,000 Sum $175,000,000 Dallas 3 Cat 3 FY 2016 $60,000,000 3 Cat 3 FY 2017 ($60,000,000) Funding is being transferred from fiscal year 2017 to fiscal 2016 in response to DART request. Sum Fort Worth 3 Cat 3 DFW FY 2015 $2,500,000 3 Cat 3 DFW FY 2020 ($2,500,000) Page 1 of 6 Sum

REVISION DATE 11/7/14 EXHIBIT A /MPO/TMA Category Description Fiscal Year Adjusted Amount Post Public Meeting Adjustments Houston 3 Cat 3 FY 2015 $25,000,000 Adjustment deferred. Commission action no longer proposed for November UTP Update 3 Cat 3 FY 2017 ($25,000,000) Adjustment deferred. Commission action no longer proposed for November UTP Update 12 Cat 12 Strategic Priority FY 2015 $25,000,000 Sum $25,000,000 Pharr 12 Cat 12 Strategic Priority FY 2015 $5,000,000 Sum $5,000,000 San Angelo 12 Cat 12 Strategic Priority - initiative FY 2018 $1,150,000 Sum $1,150,000 Tyler 12 Cat 12 Strategic Priority FY 2015 $10,940,000 Sum $10,940,000 Yoakum 12 Cat 12 Strategic Priority FY 2015 $10,000,000 Sum $10,000,000 (AUS) CAMPO TMA 7 Cat 7 STP MM FY 2015 $3,780,000 Page 2 of 6

REVISION DATE 11/7/14 EXHIBIT A /MPO/TMA Category Description Fiscal Year Adjusted Amount Post Public Meeting Adjustments (AUS) CAMPO TMA 9 Cat 9 TAP FY 2015 $320,000 Sum $4,100,000 (BMT & HOU) HGAC TMA 5 Cat 5 CMAQ FY 2015 $10,810,000 7 Cat 7 STP MM FY 2015 $14,390,000 9 Cat 9 TAP FY 2015 $1,220,000 Sum $26,420,000 (CRP) Corpus Christi TMA 7 Cat 7 STP MM FY 2015 $890,000 9 Cat 9 TAP FY 2015 $80,000 Sum $970,000 (DAL, FTW & PAR) NCTCOG TMA 5 Cat 5 CMAQ FY 2015 $12,670,000 7 Cat 7 STP MM FY 2015 $15,240,000 9 Cat 9 TAP FY 2015 $1,290,000 Sum $29,200,000 Page 3 of 6

REVISION DATE 11/7/14 EXHIBIT A /MPO/TMA Category Description Fiscal Year Adjusted Amount Post Public Meeting Adjustments (ELP) El Paso TMA 5 Cat 5 CMAQ FY 2015 $1,450,000 7 Cat 7 STP MM FY 2015 $2,140,000 9 Cat 9 TAP FY 2015 $180,000 Sum $3,770,000 (LRD) Laredo TMA 7 Cat 7 STP MM FY 2015 $650,000 9 Cat 9 TAP FY 2015 $60,000 Sum $710,000 (LBB) Lubbock TMA 7 Cat 7 STP MM FY 2015 $660,000 9 Cat 9 TAP FY 2015 $60,000 Sum $720,000 (PHR) Hidalgo County TMA 7 Cat 7 STP MM FY 2015 $2,020,000 9 Cat 9 TAP FY 2015 $170,000 Sum $2,190,000 Page 4 of 6

REVISION DATE 11/7/14 EXHIBIT A /MPO/TMA Category Description Fiscal Year Adjusted Amount Post Public Meeting Adjustments (PHR) Brownsville TMA 7 Cat 7 STP MM FY 2015 $610,000 9 Cat 9 TAP FY 2015 $50,000 Sum $660,000 (SAT) AAMPO 7 Cat 7 STP MM FY 2015 $4,880,000 9 Cat 9 TAP FY 2015 $420,000 Sum $5,300,000 (WAC) Killeen-Temple TMA 7 Cat 7 STP MM FY 2015 $610,000 9 Cat 9 TAP FY 2015 $50,000 Sum $660,000 Statewide 1 Cat 1 Statewide FY 2015 $201,000,000 Funding is being transferred in response to the LBB and OOG approving $402M in funding for energy and safety projects. 8 Cat 8 Statewide FY 2015 $201,000,000 Funding is being transferred in response to the LBB and OOG approving $402M in funding for energy and safety projects. Sum $402,000,000 PTN 9 Cat 9 TAP FY 2015 $2,040,000 Page 5 of 6

REVISION DATE 11/7/14 EXHIBIT A /MPO/TMA Category Description Fiscal Year Adjusted Amount Post Public Meeting Adjustments Sum $2,040,000 Statewide Unallocated 12 Cat 12 Strategic Priority FY 2015 ($302,680,000) 12 Cat 12 Strategic Priority FY 2015 $622,000,000 12 Cat 12 Strategic Priority FY 2015 ($402,000,000) 12 Cat 12 Strategic Priority FY 2018 ($1,150,000) Sum ($83,830,000) Grand Total $622,000,000 Page 6 of 6

REVISION DATE 11/7/14 EXHIBIT A 2015 Unified Transportation Program Austin CSJ 0914-00-384 District TRAVIS AUSTIN COUNTY Limits From METRORAIL RED LINE IN LEANDER MPO CAMPO City Project Listing Page 1 of 1 Travis County VA Letting FY 2015 Limits To AUSTIN DOWNTOWN STATION Ranking Tier 2 Project Description CONSTRUCT AUSTIN DOWNTOWN STATION AND PURCHASE FOUR (4) CAPITAL METRORAIL VEHICLES Total Project Cost Information INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY Preliminary Engineering $2,481,916 ROW & Utilities Construction $50,651,348 Construction Engineering $2,476,851 Contingencies $572,360 Indirect Costs $2,907,387 Potential Change Orders $2,107,096 Total Project Cost $61,196,958 Category 3 Description Programmed Funding Authorized Other Local Total $50,000,000 $50,000,000 Total $50,000,000 $50,000,000 Version 11/7/2014 2:11:21 PM

REVISION DATE 11/7/14 2015 Unified Transportation Program Corpus Christi CSJ 0101-06-095 District Limits From Limits To NUECES COUNTY MPO CORPUS CHRISTI CORPUS CHRISTI REVISED BEACH AVENUE MORGAN AVENUE AT CROSSTOWN EXPWY Project Description CONSTRUCT NEW BRIDGE, APPROACHES, INTERCHANGES AND HIGHWAY IMPROVE Total Project Cost Information INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY Preliminary Engineering $30,277,662 ROW & Utilities $98,500,000 Construction $617,911,467 Construction Engineering $46,034,404 Contingencies Indirect Costs $35,468,118 Potential Change Orders $14,768,084 Total Project Cost $842,959,736 Category 12 6 7 2M 6 7 6 7 12 12 EXHIBIT A City Programmed Funding Project Listing Page 1 of 1 Nueces County US 181 Ranking Tier 1 Letting FY 2015 Description Authorized Other Local Total STRATEGIC PRIORITY BRIDGE PROGRAM STP-MM METRO CORRIDOR BRIDGE PROGRAM STP-MM BRIDGE PROGRAM STP-MM $175,000,000 $97,000,000 $6,300,000 $12,600,000 $97,000,000 $6,400,000 $97,000,000 $6,500,000 $200,000,000 $175,000,000 $97,000,000 $6,300,000 $12,600,000 $97,000,000 $6,400,000 $97,000,000 $6,500,000 $200,000,000 STRATEGIC PRIORITY $110,000,000 $110,000,000 Total $807,800,000 $807,800,000 Version 11/7/2014 2:11:23 PM

REVISION DATE 11/7/14 EXHIBIT A 2015 Unified Transportation Program Dallas CSJ 0918-47-119 District DALLAS MPO DALLAS COUNTY DALLAS-FORT WORTH Limits From DART RED & BLUE LINES IN DALLAS CO Limits To US 75;IH 35E;SS 366;IH 30;AND I-345 City Project Listing Page 1 of 1 Dallas County VA Ranking Tier 2 Letting FY 2016 Project Description OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS; EXTEND STATION PLATFORMS TO ACCOMODATE LONGER TRAINS W/50% MORE PASSENGERS INTO DOWNTOWN Total Project Cost Information INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY Preliminary Engineering $3,263,293 ROW & Utilities Construction $66,597,808 Construction Engineering $4,248,940 Contingencies $859,112 Indirect Costs $3,822,714 Potential Change Orders $3,849,353 Total Project Cost $82,641,220 Category 3 Description Programmed Funding Authorized Other Local Total $60,000,000 $60,000,000 Total $60,000,000 $60,000,000 CSJ 2964-10-005 District DALLAS Limits From IH 35E Limits To SL 9 REVISED DALLAS COUNTY IH 45 IN WILMER/HUTCHINS Project Description CONSTRUCT 0 TO 2/3 LANE FRONTAGE ROADS Total Project Cost Information INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY Preliminary Engineering $6,793,982 ROW & Utilities Construction $138,652,687 Construction Engineering $6,793,982 Contingencies $1,733,159 Indirect Costs $7,958,664 Potential Change Orders $7,570,437 Total Project Cost $169,502,910 MPO DALLAS-FORT WORTH City Programmed Funding Ranking Tier 3 Letting FY 2018 Category Description Authorized Other Local Total 3 2M RTR-SH 122 METRO CORRIDOR $21,000,000 $18,940,000 $18,940,000 $21,000,000 ----------------------------------------------------Remaining Funding to be Determined---------------------------------------------------- Total $21,000,000 $18,940,000 $39,940,000 Version 11/7/2014 2:11:23 PM

REVISION DATE 11/7/14 2015 Unified Transportation Program Fort Worth CSJ 0902-48-014 District TARRANT FORT WORTH COUNTY Limits From DFW INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT EXHIBIT A MPO DALLAS-FORT WORTH City FORT WORTH TRANSP Project Listing Page 1 of 1 Tarrant County VA Letting FY 2015 Limits To COTTONBELT RAILWAY Ranking Tier 2 Project Description CONSTRUCT NEW RAIL CONNECTION; DFW INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT INTERMODAL CONNECTION TO COTTONBELT Total Project Cost Information INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY Preliminary Engineering $122,567 ROW & Utilities Construction $2,501,366 Construction Engineering $159,587 Contingencies $32,268 Indirect Costs $143,578 Potential Change Orders $144,579 Total Project Cost $3,103,945 Programmed Funding Category Description Authorized Other Local Total 3 $2,501,366 $2,501,366 ----------------------------------------------------Remaining Funding to be Determined---------------------------------------------------- Total $2,501,366 $2,501,366 Version 11/7/2014 2:11:23 PM

REVISION DATE 11/7/14 EXHIBIT A 2015 Unified Transportation Program Houston CSJ 0598-01-092 District HOUSTON Limits From IH 610 HARRIS COUNTY MPO HOUSTON-GALVESTON City HOUSTON Project Listing Page 1 of 1 Harris County SH 288 Letting FY 2015 Limits To BRAZORIA COUNTY LINE Ranking Tier 1 Project Description CONSTRUCT 4 TOLL LANES Total Project Cost Information INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY Preliminary Engineering $6,479,320 ROW & Utilities Construction $129,586,408 Construction Engineering $21,835,310 Contingencies $26,681,841 Indirect Costs $7,438,260 Potential Change Orders $6,103,520 Total Project Cost $198,124,660 Programmed Funding Category Description Authorized Other Local Total 12 STRATEGIC PRIORITY $25,000,000 $25,000,000 ----------------------------------------------------Remaining Funding to be Determined---------------------------------------------------- Total $25,000,000 $25,000,000 Version 11/7/2014 2:11:23 PM

REVISION DATE 11/7/14 2015 Unified Transportation Program Pharr CSJ 0331-01-044 District CAMERON PHARR COUNTY Limits From @ VARIOUS LOCATIONS MPO EXHIBIT A City Project Listing Page 1 of 1 Cameron County SH 100 Letting FY 2015 Limits To. Ranking Tier 2 Project Description INSTALL OCELOT CROSSINGS Total Project Cost Information INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY Preliminary Engineering $126,157 ROW & Utilities Construction $2,574,631 Construction Engineering $164,261 Contingencies $33,213 Indirect Costs $147,784 Potential Change Orders $148,814 Total Project Cost $3,194,860 Programmed Funding Category Description Authorized Other Local Total 12 STRATEGIC PRIORITY $2,500,000 $2,500,000 ----------------------------------------------------Remaining Funding to be Determined---------------------------------------------------- Total $2,500,000 $2,500,000 CSJ 0331-02-052 District CAMERON PHARR COUNTY Limits From @ VARIOUS LOCATIONS MPO City SH 100 Letting FY 2015 Limits To. Ranking Tier 2 Project Description INSTALL OCELOT CROSSINGS Total Project Cost Information INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY Preliminary Engineering $126,157 ROW & Utilities Construction $2,574,631 Construction Engineering $164,261 Contingencies $33,213 Indirect Costs $147,784 Potential Change Orders $148,814 Total Project Cost $3,194,860 Programmed Funding Category Description Authorized Other Local Total 12 STRATEGIC PRIORITY $2,500,000 $2,500,000 ----------------------------------------------------Remaining Funding to be Determined---------------------------------------------------- Total $2,500,000 $2,500,000 Version 11/7/2014 2:11:23 PM

REVISION DATE 11/7/14 2015 Unified Transportation Program San Angelo CSJ 0158-02-084 District SAN ANGELO Limits From AT TRACTOR TRAIL Limits To. US 67 REVISED TOM GREEN COUNTY Project Description CONSTRUCT INTERCHANGE Total Project Cost Information INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY Preliminary Engineering $418,348 ROW & Utilities Construction $8,537,718 Construction Engineering $400,419 Contingencies $255,278 Indirect Costs $490,065 Potential Change Orders $383,344 Total Project Cost $10,485,171 Category 2U 12 MPO SAN ANGELO EXHIBIT A City Project Listing Page 1 of 1 Tom Green County Programmed Funding Ranking Tier 1 Letting FY 2018 Description Authorized Other Local Total URBAN CORRIDOR $7,590,000 $7,590,000 $1,150,000 $1,150,000 Total $8,740,000 $8,740,000 Version 11/7/2014 2:11:23 PM

REVISION DATE 11/7/14 EXHIBIT A 2015 Unified Transportation Program San Antonio CSJ 0915-12-950 District BEXAR MPO SAN ANTONIO COUNTY Limits From VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN BEXAR COUNTY Limits To. City Project Listing Page 1 of 1 Bexar County VA Ranking Tier 2 Letting FY 2015 Project Description BUS PURCHASE, PARK & RIDE FACILITIES, BUS STOP AMENITIES AND NEW BRAUNFELS AVE IMPROVEMENTS Total Project Cost Information INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY Preliminary Engineering $1,771,747 ROW & Utilities Construction $36,158,110 Construction Engineering $2,306,887 Contingencies $466,440 Indirect Costs $2,075,475 Potential Change Orders $2,089,939 Total Project Cost $44,868,598 Category 9 3 Programmed Funding Description Authorized Other Local Total TRANSPORT ALTERNATIVE $20,520,000 $14,480,000 $20,520,000 $14,480,000 Total $35,000,000 $35,000,000 Version 11/7/2014 2:11:23 PM

REVISION DATE 11/7/14 2015 Unified Transportation Program Tyler CSJ 0198-02-027 District HENDERSON TYLER COUNTY Limits From 1.1 MI E OF LP 60E @ LARUE, SE Limits To MPO REVISED 0.85 MI E OF FM 315, IN POYNOR Project Description WIDEN 2 LNS TO 4-LANE DIVIDED RURAL WITH DEPRESSED MEDIAN Total Project Cost Information INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY Preliminary Engineering $1,538,788 ROW & Utilities $7,785,122 Construction $31,403,836 Construction Engineering $1,557,630 Contingencies $624,936 Indirect Costs $1,802,580 Potential Change Orders $1,174,503 Total Project Cost $45,887,396 EXHIBIT A City Programmed Funding Project Listing Page 1 of 1 Henderson County US 175 Ranking Tier 2 Letting FY 2015 Category Description Authorized Other Local Total 12 12 STRATEGIC PRIORITY STRATEGIC PRIORITY $20,000,000 $10,940,000 $20,000,000 $10,940,000 ----------------------------------------------------Remaining Funding to be Determined---------------------------------------------------- Total $30,940,000 $30,940,000 Version 11/7/2014 2:11:23 PM

REVISION DATE 11/7/14 2015 Unified Transportation Program Yoakum CSJ 0089-06-081 District WHARTON YOAKUM COUNTY Limits From BU 59 SOUTH OF EL CAMPO Limits To FM 1163 MPO REVISED Project Description CONSTRUCT FRONTAGE ROADS I-69 SYSTEM PROJECT (PROJECT B) Total Project Cost Information INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY Preliminary Engineering $426,232 ROW & Utilities Construction $8,698,608 Construction Engineering $431,451 Contingencies $173,102 Indirect Costs $499,300 Potential Change Orders $325,328 Total Project Cost $10,554,021 Category 3 12 EXHIBIT A City Programmed Funding Project Listing Page 1 of 1 Wharton County US 59 Ranking Tier 2 Letting FY 2015 Description Authorized Other Local Total LOCAL STRATEGIC PRIORITY $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 Total $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $9,000,000 CSJ 0089-07-133 District YOAKUM Limits From 0.17 MI. WEST OF SH 71 MPO REVISED WHARTON COUNTY Limits To 0.12 MI. EAST OF FM 1163 Project Description CONSTRUCT FRONTAGE ROADS Total Project Cost Information INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY Preliminary Engineering $372,067 ROW & Utilities Construction $7,593,203 Construction Engineering $376,623 Contingencies $151,105 Indirect Costs $435,850 Potential Change Orders $283,986 Total Project Cost $9,212,833 Category 3 12 City Programmed Funding US 59 Ranking Tier 2 Letting FY 2015 Description Authorized Other Local Total LOCAL STRATEGIC PRIORITY $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 Total $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $9,000,000 Version 11/7/2014 2:11:23 PM

EXHIBIT A Project Selection Process Putting Great Ideas in Motion Understanding TxDOT s project selection process helps Texans understand how the roads and bridges they drive on every day are selected for funding. Learning how projects are prioritized and how funding is structured helps Texans know how they can participate in the process, make suggestions, and propose projects to address the transportation problems they face. As the department continues to develop and enhance the project process, its goal is to provide the public with as many interaction opportunities as possible to help the department seek new, innovative, and creative ways for the available funds to do the most good for the people of Texas. Project Development Sequence and Programming In order for TxDOT s project development process to maintain its efficiency, projects must be preliminarily identified years in advance of their actual funding and construction award. A project must pass through many development steps, generally including identifying a need, exploring alternatives, studying impacts and cost, gathering local stakeholder and public input, acquiring right of way, producing construction plans, and awarding construction contracts. At any point during this process, a decision may be made not to implement the project, or the project definition may change to better meet the needs and balance community, environmental, and cost considerations. An important factor in the above process is the amount of funds available to construct projects. As explained in the Authority section under the Categories, Codes, and Levels section, for the purpose of the UTP, the steps required in project development have been organized into four levels of development authority: PLAN, DEVELOP, CONSTRUCT, and LET. The Texas Transportation Commission uses these levels of authority to authorize the district to complete the development actions included in each level. Depending on the category of funding, TxDOT, in collaboration with the MPO as appropriate, selects the projects that fit within the financial constraint of the allocations for the relevant time period. For the purpose of the UTP, this process may be summarized as a project readiness sequence, as shown in Figure IX-2. The general relationship of level of authority to the timeline of the UTP is as follows: Projects listed in the first 4 years of the UTP are authorized for a CONSTRUCT level of authority. Projects in the later 6 years of the UTP are authorized for a DEVELOP level of authority. Projects with the PLAN level of authority are typically at a stage that is prior to the UTP and therefore are generally not included in the UTP. 2015 Unified Transportation Program IX-26 Version August 7, 2014 REVISION DATE 11/7/14

EXHIBIT A Figure IX-2 Project Readiness Sequence Project Selection: Planning in Practice Overall, the intent of the department s project selection process is that it be consistent with the department s goals; the need for the project to address these goals is a primary driver of projects moving forward into implementation. However, project selection is also guided by the funding available for project implementation. This constraint is explained in the Project Funding 101 section, and is key to understanding the complexity of prioritizing and selecting projects across TxDOT s entire program. Table IX-1 contains a summary of the UTP funding categories and the various project selection methods by category. Funding Category 1. Preventive Maintenance and Rehabilitation 2. Metropolitan and Urban Area Corridor Projects 3. Non-traditionally Funded Transportation Projects 4. Statewide Connectivity Corridor Projects 5. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement 6. Structures Replacement and Rehabilitation Bridge Program, Railroad Grade Separation Program 7. Metropolitan Mobility/Rehabilitation Table IX-1 Overview of Project Selection by Category Project Selection Projects selected by districts. The Texas Transportation Commission allocates funds through a formula allocation program. Projects selected by MPOs in consultation with TxDOT. The Texas Transportation Commission allocates funds through a formula allocation program. Projects determined by legislation, Texas Transportation Commission approved Minute Order, and local government commitments. Selections based on engineering analysis of projects on three corridor types: Mobility corridors based on congestion. Connectivity corridors two-lane roadways requiring upgrade to four-lane divided roadways. Strategic corridors strategic corridor additions to the state highway network. An example is the Ports-to-Plains corridor. Projects selected by MPOs in consultation with TxDOT. The Texas Transportation Commission allocates funds distributed by population weighted by air quality severity to non-attainment areas. Non-attainment areas are designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Projects selected by the Bridge Division (BRG) based on a listing of eligible bridges prioritized first by Deficiency Categorization (Structurally Deficient followed by Functionally Obsolete) and then by Sufficiency Ratings. The Texas Transportation Commission allocates funds through the Statewide Allocation Program. Projects selected by MPOs operating in transportation management areas, in consultation with TxDOT. The Texas Transportation Commission allocates funds through a federal program, distributed to MPOs with an urbanized area population of 200,000 or greater (transportation management areas [TMAs]). 2015 Unified Transportation Program IX-27 Version August 7, 2014 REVISION DATE 11/7/14

Funding Category 8. Safety Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), Federal Railway-Highway Crossing Program, Safety Bond Program 9. Transportation Enhancements 9. Transportation Alternatives 10. Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program (CBI) and Congressional High Priority Projects 10. Supplemental Transportation Projects: State Park Roads, Railroad Grade Crossing Replanking, Railroad Signal Maintenance, Landscape Incentive Awards, Green Ribbon Landscape Improvement, Curb Ramp Program EXHIBIT A Project Selection Projects selected statewide by federally mandated safety indices and prioritized listing. The Texas Transportation Commission allocates funds through the Statewide Allocation Program. Projects nominated by local entities; TxDOT, in consultation with FHWA, evaluates the projects for eligibility and makes recommendations to the Texas Transportation Commission. TMAs select and rank projects within their areas in consultation with TxDOT. Projects in the Safety Rest Area Program are selected by the TxDOT Maintenance Division (MNT). For statewide allocation, projects nominated by local entities; TxDOT, in consultation with FHWA, reviews the projects. Eligible projects are selected and approved by the Texas Transportation Commission on a per-project basis. For TMA allocation, the respective TMA hosts program calls and selects eligible projects. CBI projects selected by districts with FHWA review and approval. Discretionary funds are congressionally designated. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) selects State Park Road projects in coordination with districts. The TxDOT Traffic Division in coordination with districts selects Railroad Grade Crossing Replanking and Railroad Signal Maintenance projects. Landscape Incentive Awards are distributed to 10 locations based on the results of the Keep Texas Beautiful Awards Program and managed by the TxDOT Design Division. Green Ribbon Allocations are based on one-half percent of the estimated letting capacity for the TxDOT districts that contain air quality non-attainment or near non-attainment counties and managed by the TxDOT Design Division. Curb Ramp projects are selected based on conditions of curb ramps or location of intersections without ramps and managed by the Design Division. 11. District Discretionary Projects selected by districts. The Texas Transportation Commission allocates funds through a formula allocation program. A minimum $2.5 million allocation goes to each district per legislative mandate. 12. Strategic Priority The Texas Transportation Commission selects projects. 2015 Unified Transportation Program IX-28 Modified October 1, 2014 REVISION DATE 11/7/14

Rehab PM Metro Urban STWD CMAQ Bridge STP MM Safety TE Misc CBI ADMINISTRATIVE - EXHIBIT B APPROVED FISCAL YEAR 2015 FUNDING ALLOCATIONS (August 28, 2014 - Commission MO 114027) 2015 UTP (in millions) Earmark Match District Discretionary Strategic Priority Comm Disc (Dist) Comm Disc (TMA) CMAQ STP-MM Additional Allocation MPO/TMA Cat 1 Cat 2 Cat 2 Cat 4 Cat 5 Cat 6 Cat 7 Cat 8 Cat 9 Cat 10 Cat 10 Cat 10 Cat 11 Cat 12 Cat 12 Cat 12 Cat 12 (Recon) Cat 12 (Recon) Cat. 12 Total MPO/TMA Abilene 29.66 - - - - - - - - - - - 2.50 - - - - - - 32.16 Abilene Amarillo 46.21 - - - - - - - - - - - 2.50 - - - - - - 48.71 Amarillo Atlanta 30.34 - - - - - - - - - - - 7.00 - - - - - - 37.34 Atlanta Austin 63.02 - - - - - - - - - - - 2.50 42.68 - - - - - 108.20 Austin Beaumont 26.02 - - - - - - - - - - - 2.50 - - - - - - 28.52 Beaumont Brownwood 12.33 - - - - - - - - - - - 2.50 - - - - - - 14.83 Brownwood Bryan 35.50 - - - - - - - - - - - 2.50 - - - - - - 38.00 Bryan Childress 17.85 - - - - - - - - - - - 2.50 - - - - - - 20.35 Childress Corpus Christi 57.61 - - - - - - - - - - - 2.50 - - - - - - 60.11 Corpus Christi Dallas 86.17 - - - - - - - - - - 0.40 2.50 374.99 - - - - - 464.06 Dallas El Paso 16.59 - - - - - - - - - 17.23-0.31 22.83 - - - - - 56.96 El Paso Ft. Worth 54.02 - - - - - - - - - - - 2.50 218.01 - - - - - 274.53 Ft. Worth Houston 92.19 - - - - - - - - - - 2.26 2.50 20.85 - - - - - 117.80 Houston Laredo 44.39 - - - - - - - - - 15.22 1.07 2.50 - - - - - - 63.18 Laredo Lubbock 43.02 - - - - - - - - - - - 2.50 - - - - - - 45.52 Lubbock Lufkin 27.84 - - - - - - - - - - - 2.50 - - - - - - 30.34 Lufkin Odessa 23.28 - - - - - - - - - - - 2.50 - - - - - - 25.78 Odessa Paris 36.81 - - - - - - - - - - - 2.50 - - - - - - 39.31 Paris Pharr 38.19 - - - - - - - - - 37.50-2.50 - - - - - - 78.19 Pharr San Angelo 17.11 - - - - - - - - - - - 2.50 - - - - - - 19.61 San Angelo San Antonio 41.08 - - - - - - - - - - - 4.50 18.00 - - - - - 63.58 San Antonio Tyler 27.38 - - - - - - - - - - - 2.50 30.00 - - - - - 59.88 Tyler Waco 46.19 - - - - - - - - - - 0.40 2.50 - - - - - - 49.09 Waco Wichita Falls 20.49 - - - - - - - - - - - 2.50 - - - - - - 22.99 Wichita Falls Yoakum 39.33 - - - - - - - - - - - 2.50 - - - - - - 41.83 Yoakum (ABL) Abilene MPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (ABL) Abilene MPO (AMA) Amarillo MPO - - 3.52 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3.52 (AMA) Amarillo MPO (ATL) Texarkana MPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (ATL) Texarkana MPO (AUS) CAMPO TMA - 50.70 - - - - 21.82-1.86 - - - - - - - - 0.90-75.28 (AUS) CAMPO TMA (BMT & HOU) HGAC TMA - - - - 62.36-83.04-7.06 - - - - - - - - 1.89-154.35 (BMT & HOU) HGAC TMA (BMT) JHORTS MPO - - 9.25 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.36 - - 9.61 (BMT) JHORTS MPO (BRY) Bryan-College Station MPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (BRY) Bryan-College Station MPO (CRP) Corpus Christi TMA - - - - - - 5.13-1.60 - - - - - - - - 0.20-6.93 (CRP) Corpus Christi TMA (DAL, FTW & PAR) NCTCOG TMA - - - - 73.11-87.91-23.62 - - - - - - - - - - 184.64 (DAL, FTW & PAR) NCTCOG TMA (ELP) El Paso TMA - 91.17 - - 8.39-12.37-1.05 - - - - - - - - - - 112.98 (ELP) El Paso TMA (LRD) Laredo TMA - - - - - - 11.28-0.32 - - - - - - - - - - 11.60 (LRD) Laredo TMA (LBB) Lubbock TMA - - - - - - 0.06-0.32 - - - - - - - - - - 0.38 (LBB) Lubbock TMA (ODA) Midland-Odessa TMA - - 3.49 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3.49 (ODA) Midland-Odessa TMA (PAR) Sherman-Denison MPO - - 2.92 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2.92 (PAR) Sherman-Denison MPO (PHR) Harlingen-San Benito MPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (PHR) Harlingen-San Benito MPO (PHR) Hidalgo County TMA - - - - - - 0.19-3.63 - - - - - - - - - - 3.82 (PHR) Hidalgo County TMA (PHR) Brownsville TMA - - - - - - 3.49-1.10 - - - - - - - - - - 4.59 (PHR) Brownsville TMA (SJT) San Angelo MPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (SJT) San Angelo MPO (SAT) AAMPO - 63.75 - - - - 28.16-8.77 - - - - - - - - 1.03-101.71 (SAT) AAMPO (TYL) Tyler MPO - - 0.61 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.61 (TYL) Tyler MPO (TYL) Longview MPO - - 13.53 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13.53 (TYL) Longview MPO (WAC) Killeen-Temple TMA - - - - - - 3.49-0.30 - - - - - - - - - - 3.79 (WAC) Killeen-Temple TMA (WAC) Waco MPO - - 14.11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 14.11 (WAC) Waco MPO (WFS) Wichita Falls MPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (WFS) Wichita Falls MPO (YKM) Victoria MPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (YKM) Victoria MPO Bridge Division - - - - - 300.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 300.00 Bridge Division Traffic Division (HSIP) - - - - - - - 155.00 - - - - - - - - - - - 155.00 Traffic Division (HSIP) Design Division - - - - - - - - 55.87 - - - - - - - - - - 55.87 Design Division TAP (PTN) - - - - - - - - 11.74 - - - - - - - - - - 11.74 TAP (PTN) Federal Railway-Highway Safety - - - - - - - 15.00 - - - - - - - - - - - 15.00 Federal Railway-Highway Safety Railroad Grade Crossing - - - - - - - - - 3.50 - - - - - - - - - 3.50 Railroad Grade Crossing Railroad Crossing, Congestion & Safety Mitigation - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Railroad Crossing, Congestion & Safety Mitigation Railroad Signal Maintenance - - - - - - - - - 1.10 - - - - - - - - - 1.10 Railroad Signal Maintenance Systemic Widening Program - - - - - - - 15.50 - - - - - - - - - - - 15.50 Systemic Widening Program Priority Rural Highway Projects - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Priority Rural Highway Projects Texas Parks and Wildlife - - - - - - - - - 10.00 - - - - - - - - - 10.00 Texas Parks and Wildlife Landscape Incentive Awards - - - - - - - - - 2.00 - - - - - - - - - 2.00 Landscape Incentive Awards Americans with Disabilities Act - - - - - - - - - 15.00 - - - - - - - - - 15.00 Americans with Disabilities Act TAP Flex - - - - - - - - 36.32 - - - - - - - - - - 36.32 TAP Flex Green Ribbon - - - - - - - - - 16.40 - - - - - - - - - 16.40 Green Ribbon Federal Lands Access Program - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Federal Lands Access Program Strategic Partnership Agreement with Webb County RMA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Strategic Partnership Agreement with Webb County RMA Strategic Partnership Agreement with Hidalgo County RMA - - - - - - - - - - - - - 26.46 - - - - - 26.46 Strategic Partnership Agreement with Hidalgo County RMA Strategic Partnership Agreement with Cameron County RMA - - - - - - - - - - - - - 14.60 - - - - - 14.60 Strategic Partnership Agreement with Cameron County RMA Strategic Priority Safety Maintenance Energy (SMEP) - - - - - - - - - - - - - 409.70 - - - - - 409.70 Strategic Priority Safety Maintenance Energy (SMEP) Statewide 3.35 - - - - - - - - - - - - 30.00 - - - - - 33.35 Statewide Energy Sector - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Energy Sector Statewide Unallocated - - - - - - - - - - - - - (348.65) - - - - - (348.65) Statewide Unallocated Total $ 975.97 $ 205.62 $ 47.43 $ - $ 143.86 $ 300.00 $ 256.94 $ 185.50 $ 153.56 $ 48.00 $ 69.95 $ 4.13 $ 66.81 $ 859.47 $ - $ - $ 0.36 $ 4.02 $ - $ 3,321.62 Total Cat 10 Statewide Programs (2014-2023) Allocation TPW - Texas Park and Wildlife Roads $ 10.00 GR - Green Ribbon 11.00 LIA - Landscape Incentive Awards Program 2.00 RSM - Railroad Signal Maintenance 1.10 RGC - State RR Grade Crossing & Replanking 3.50 ADA - Curb Ramp Program 15.00 Total $ 42.60 11/10/2014 3:53 PM]

ADMINISTRATIVE - EXHIBIT B FISCAL YEAR 2015 ADJUSTMENTS(November 2014 - Administration Approval) (in millions) Rehab PM Metro Urban STWD CMAQ Bridge STP MM Safety TE Misc CBI Earmark Match District Discretionary Strategic Priority Comm Disc (Dist) Comm Disc (TMA) CMAQ STP-MM MPO/TMA Cat 1 Cat 2 Cat 2 Cat 4 Cat 5 Cat 6 Cat 7 Cat 8 Cat 9 Cat 10 Cat 10 Cat 10 Cat 11 Cat 12 Cat 12 Cat 12 Cat 12 (Recon) Cat 12 (Recon) Cat. 12 Total MPO/TMA Abilene (2.76) - - - - - - - - - - - (0.17) - - - - - - (2.93) Abilene Amarillo (4.41) - - - - - - - - - - - 0.35 - - - - - 0.08 (3.98) Amarillo Atlanta (3.22) - - - - - - - - - - - 0.25 - - - - - - (2.97) Atlanta Austin (0.90) - - - - - - - - - - - 0.34 60.94 - - - - - 60.38 Austin Beaumont - - - - 14.66 - - - - - - - 0.43 - - - - - - 15.09 Beaumont Brownwood (0.50) - - - - - - - - - - - (0.01) - - - - - - (0.51) Brownwood Bryan - - - - - - - - - - - - (0.02) - - - - - - (0.02) Bryan Childress (2.32) - - - - - - - - - - - 0.09 - - - - - - (2.23) Childress Corpus Christi (10.90) - - - - - - - - - - - 0.85 - - - - - - (10.05) Corpus Christi Dallas (5.57) - - - - - - - - - - - (0.91) 157.74 - - - - - 151.26 Dallas El Paso (1.52) - - - - - - - - - - - (0.01) (9.16) - - - - - (10.69) El Paso Ft. Worth (4.86) - - - - - - - - - - - 0.48 (107.74) 0.95 - - - 0.01 (111.16) Ft. Worth Houston (26.30) - - - - - - - - - - 0.40 (0.72) 180.85 - - - - - 154.23 Houston Laredo (2.26) - - - - - - - - - - - (0.08) - 0.01 - - - - (2.33) Laredo Lubbock (6.28) - - - - - - - - - - - (1.34) 36.00 - - - - - 28.38 Lubbock Lufkin (3.64) - - - - - - - - - - - (0.04) - - - - - - (3.68) Lufkin Odessa (1.49) - - - - - - - - - - - 0.08 - - - - - - (1.41) Odessa Paris (0.34) - - - - - - - - - - - 1.27 - - - - - - 0.93 Paris Pharr - - - - - - - - - - 4.30-0.90 11.30 - - - - - 16.50 Pharr San Angelo (1.70) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (1.70) San Angelo San Antonio (4.96) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (4.96) San Antonio Tyler (1.28) - - - - - - - - - - - (0.01) - - - - - - (1.29) Tyler Waco (1.30) - - - - - - - - - - 0.45 (0.33) - - - - - - (1.18) Waco Wichita Falls (3.58) - - - - - - - - - - - 0.07 - - - - - - (3.51) Wichita Falls Yoakum - - - - - - - - - - - - (0.28) - - - - - - (0.28) Yoakum (ABL) Abilene MPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (ABL) Abilene MPO (AMA) Amarillo MPO - - 0.09 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.09 (AMA) Amarillo MPO (ATL) Texarkana MPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (ATL) Texarkana MPO (AUS) CAMPO TMA - - - - - - 39.23 - (0.22) - - - - - - - - - - 39.01 (AUS) CAMPO TMA (BMT & HOU) HGAC TMA - - - - 33.25-60.38-17.95 - - - - - - - - 0.01-111.59 (BMT & HOU) HGAC TMA (BMT) JHORTS MPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.63 - - 0.63 (BMT) JHORTS MPO (BRY) Bryan-College Station MPO - - 0.05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.05 (BRY) Bryan-College Station MPO (CRP) Corpus Christi TMA - 0.09 - - - - 7.06 - (0.05) - - - - - - - - - - 7.10 (CRP) Corpus Christi TMA (DAL, FTW & PAR) NCTCOG TMA - 131.83 - - 1.51-65.33 - (0.90) - - - - 18.94 - - 3.33 - - 220.04 (DAL, FTW & PAR) NCTCOG TMA (ELP) El Paso TMA - 18.62 - - 8.82-22.73-2.67 - - - - - - - 5.13 0.57-58.54 (ELP) El Paso TMA (LRD) Laredo TMA - - 0.04 - - - 0.23-0.82 - - - - - - - - - - 1.09 (LRD) Laredo TMA (LBB) Lubbock TMA - - - - - - (0.72) - 0.82 - - - - - - - - - - 0.10 (LBB) Lubbock TMA (ODA) Midland-Odessa TMA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (ODA) Midland-Odessa TMA (PAR) Sherman-Denison MPO - - 0.87 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.87 (PAR) Sherman-Denison MPO (PHR) Harlingen-San Benito MPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (PHR) Harlingen-San Benito MPO (PHR) Hidalgo County TMA - - - - - - 14.85 - (0.12) - - - - - - - - 0.82-15.55 (PHR) Hidalgo County TMA (PHR) Brownsville TMA - 0.32 - - - - 4.59 - (0.05) - - - - - - - - - - 4.86 (PHR) Brownsville TMA (SJT) San Angelo MPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (SJT) San Angelo MPO (SAT) AAMPO - - - - - - 23.09 - (0.29) - - - - - - - - - - 22.80 (SAT) AAMPO (TYL) Tyler MPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (TYL) Tyler MPO (TYL) Longview MPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (TYL) Longview MPO (WAC) Killeen-Temple TMA - - - - - - 6.58-0.75 - - - - - - - - - - 7.33 (WAC) Killeen-Temple TMA (WAC) Waco MPO - - 0.19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.19 (WAC) Waco MPO (WFS) Wichita Falls MPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (WFS) Wichita Falls MPO (YKM) Victoria MPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (YKM) Victoria MPO Bridge Division - - - - - (7.74) - - - - - - - - - - - - - (7.74) Bridge Division Traffic Division (HSIP) - - - - - - - (2.40) - - - - - - - - - - - (2.40) Traffic Division (HSIP) Design Division - - - - - - - - 87.59 - - - - - - - - - - 87.59 Design Division TAP (PTN) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TAP (PTN) Federal Railway-Highway Safety - - - - - - - 7.26 - - - - - - - - - - - 7.26 Federal Railway-Highway Safety Railroad Grade Crossing - - - - - - - - - (0.14) - - - - - - - - - (0.14) Railroad Grade Crossing Railroad Crossing, Congestion & Safety Mitigation - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Railroad Crossing, Congestion & Safety Mitigation Railroad Signal Maintenance - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Railroad Signal Maintenance Systemic Widening Program - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Systemic Widening Program Priority Rural Highway Projects - - - - - - - 8.75 - - - - - - - - - - - 8.75 Priority Rural Highway Projects Texas Parks and Wildlife - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Texas Parks and Wildlife Landscape Incentive Awards - - - - - - - - - 1.59 - - - - - - - - - 1.59 Landscape Incentive Awards Americans with Disabilities Act - - - - - - - - - (3.53) - - - - - - - - - (3.53) Americans with Disabilities Act TAP Flex - - - - 4.57 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4.57 TAP Flex Green Ribbon - - - - - - - - - (2.16) - - - - - - - - - (2.16) Green Ribbon Federal Lands Access Program - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Federal Lands Access Program Strategic Partnership Agreement with Webb County RMA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Strategic Partnership Agreement with Webb County RMA Strategic Partnership Agreement with Hidalgo County RMA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Strategic Partnership Agreement with Hidalgo County RMA Strategic Partnership Agreement with Cameron County RMA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Strategic Partnership Agreement with Cameron County RMA Strategic Priority Safety Maintenance Energy (SMEP) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Strategic Priority Safety Maintenance Energy (SMEP) Statewide - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Statewide Energy Sector - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Energy Sector Statewide Unallocated - - - - - - - - - - - - - 371.11 - - - - - 371.11 Statewide Unallocated Total $ (90.09) $ 150.86 $ 1.24 $ - $ 62.81 $ (7.74) $ 243.35 $ 13.61 $ 108.97 $ (4.24) $ 4.30 $ 0.85 $ 1.19 $ 719.98 $ 0.96 $ - $ 9.09 $ 1.40 $ 0.09 $ 1,216.63 Total Additional Allocation 11/10/2014 3:53 PM

ADMINISTRATIVE - EXHIBIT B FISCAL YEAR 2015 ADJUSTMENTS (November 2014 - Commission Approval MO) (in millions) Rehab PM Metro Urban STWD CMAQ Bridge STP MM Safety TE Misc CBI Earmark Match District Discretionary Strategic Priority Comm Disc (Dist) Comm Disc (TMA) CMAQ STP-MM MPO/TMA Cat 1 Cat 2 Cat 2 Cat 4 Cat 5 Cat 6 Cat 7 Cat 8 Cat 9 Cat 10 Cat 10 Cat 10 Cat 11 Cat 12 Cat 12 Cat 12 Cat 12 (Recon) Cat 12 (Recon) Cat. 12 Total MPO/TMA Abilene - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Abilene Amarillo - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Amarillo Atlanta - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Atlanta Austin - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Austin Beaumont - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Beaumont Brownwood - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brownwood Bryan - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bryan Childress - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Childress Corpus Christi - - - - - - - - - - - - - 175.00 - - - - - 175.00 Corpus Christi Dallas - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dallas El Paso - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - El Paso Ft. Worth - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ft. Worth Houston - - - - - - - - - - - - - 25.00 - - - - - 25.00 Houston Laredo - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Laredo Lubbock - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lubbock Lufkin - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lufkin Odessa - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Odessa Paris - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Paris Pharr - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5.00 - - - - - 5.00 Pharr San Angelo - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - San Angelo San Antonio - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - San Antonio Tyler - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.94 - - - - - 10.94 Tyler Waco - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Waco Wichita Falls - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Wichita Falls Yoakum - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10.00 - - - - - 10.00 Yoakum (ABL) Abilene MPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (ABL) Abilene MPO (AMA) Amarillo MPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (AMA) Amarillo MPO (ATL) Texarkana MPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (ATL) Texarkana MPO (AUS) CAMPO TMA - - - - - - 3.78-0.32 - - - - - - - - - - 4.10 (AUS) CAMPO TMA (BMT & HOU) HGAC TMA - - - - 10.81-14.39-1.22 - - - - - - - - - - 26.42 (BMT & HOU) HGAC TMA (BMT) JHORTS MPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (BMT) JHORTS MPO (BRY) Bryan-College Station MPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (BRY) Bryan-College Station MPO (CRP) Corpus Christi TMA - - - - - - 0.89-0.08 - - - - - - - - - - 0.97 (CRP) Corpus Christi TMA (DAL, FTW & PAR) NCTCOG TMA - - - - 12.67-15.24-1.29 - - - - - - - - - - 29.20 (DAL, FTW & PAR) NCTCOG TMA (ELP) El Paso TMA - - - - 1.45-2.14-0.18 - - - - - - - - - - 3.77 (ELP) El Paso TMA (LRD) Laredo TMA - - - - - - 0.65-0.06 - - - - - - - - - - 0.71 (LRD) Laredo TMA (LBB) Lubbock TMA - - - - - - 0.66-0.06 - - - - - - - - - - 0.72 (LBB) Lubbock TMA (ODA) Midland-Odessa TMA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (ODA) Midland-Odessa TMA (PAR) Sherman-Denison MPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (PAR) Sherman-Denison MPO (PHR) Harlingen-San Benito MPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (PHR) Harlingen-San Benito MPO (PHR) Hidalgo County TMA - - - - - - 2.02-0.17 - - - - - - - - - - 2.19 (PHR) Hidalgo County TMA (PHR) Brownsville TMA - - - - - - 0.61-0.05 - - - - - - - - - - 0.66 (PHR) Brownsville TMA (SJT) San Angelo MPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (SJT) San Angelo MPO (SAT) AAMPO - - - - - - 4.88-0.42 - - - - - - - - - - 5.30 (SAT) AAMPO (TYL) Tyler MPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (TYL) Tyler MPO (TYL) Longview MPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (TYL) Longview MPO (WAC) Killeen-Temple TMA - - - - - - 0.61-0.05 - - - - - - - - - - 0.66 (WAC) Killeen-Temple TMA (WAC) Waco MPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (WAC) Waco MPO (WFS) Wichita Falls MPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (WFS) Wichita Falls MPO (YKM) Victoria MPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (YKM) Victoria MPO Bridge Division - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bridge Division Traffic Division (HSIP) - - - - - - - 201.00 - - - - - - - - - - - 201.00 Traffic Division (HSIP) Design Division - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Design Division TAP (PTN) - - - - - - - - 2.04 - - - - - - - - - - 2.04 TAP (PTN) Federal Railway-Highway Safety - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Federal Railway-Highway Safety Railroad Grade Crossing - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Railroad Grade Crossing Railroad Crossing, Congestion & Safety Mitigation - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Railroad Crossing, Congestion & Safety Mitigation Railroad Signal Maintenance - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Railroad Signal Maintenance Systemic Widening Program - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Systemic Widening Program Priority Rural Highway Projects - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Priority Rural Highway Projects Texas Parks and Wildlife - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Texas Parks and Wildlife Landscape Incentive Awards - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Landscape Incentive Awards Americans with Disabilities Act - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Americans with Disabilities Act TAP Flex - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TAP Flex Green Ribbon - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Green Ribbon Federal Lands Access Program - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Federal Lands Access Program Strategic Partnership Agreement with Webb County RMA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Strategic Partnership Agreement with Webb County RMA Strategic Partnership Agreement with Hidalgo County RMA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Strategic Partnership Agreement with Hidalgo County RMA Strategic Partnership Agreement with Cameron County RMA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Strategic Partnership Agreement with Cameron County RMA Strategic Priority Safety Maintenance Energy (SMEP) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Strategic Priority Safety Maintenance Energy (SMEP) Statewide - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Statewide Energy Sector 201.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 201.00 Energy Sector Statewide Unallocated - - - - - - - - - - - - - (82.68) - - - - - (82.68) Statewide Unallocated Total $ 201.00 $ - $ - $ - $ 24.93 $ - $ 45.87 $ 201.00 $ 5.94 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 143.26 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 622.00 Total Additional Allocation 11/10/2014 3:53 PM

ADMINISTRATIVE - EXHIBIT B REVISED FISCAL YEAR 2015 FUNDING ALLOCATIONS (November 2014 - Commission Approval MO) (in millions) Rehab PM Metro Urban STWD CMAQ Bridge STP MM Safety TE Misc CBI Earmark Match District Discretionary Strategic Priority Comm Disc (Dist) Comm Disc (TMA) CMAQ STP-MM Additional Allocation MPO/TMA Cat 1 Cat 2 Cat 2 Cat 4 Cat 5 Cat 6 Cat 7 Cat 8 Cat 9 Cat 10 Cat 10 Cat 10 Cat 11 Cat 12 Cat 12 Cat 12 Cat 12 (Recon) Cat 12 (Recon) Cat. 12 Total MPO/TMA Abilene 26.90 - - - - - - - - - - - 2.33 - - - - - - $ 29.23 Abilene Amarillo 41.80 - - - - - - - - - - - 2.85 - - - - - 0.08 44.73 Amarillo Atlanta 27.12 - - - - - - - - - - - 7.25 - - - - - - 34.37 Atlanta Austin 62.12 - - - - - - - - - - - 2.84 103.62 - - - - - 168.58 Austin Beaumont 26.02 - - - 14.66 - - - - - - - 2.93 - - - - - - 43.61 Beaumont Brownwood 11.83 - - - - - - - - - - - 2.49 - - - - - - 14.32 Brownwood Bryan 35.50 - - - - - - - - - - - 2.48 - - - - - - 37.98 Bryan Childress 15.53 - - - - - - - - - - - 2.59 - - - - - - 18.12 Childress Corpus Christi 46.71 - - - - - - - - - - - 3.35 175.00 - - - - - 225.06 Corpus Christi Dallas 80.60 - - - - - - - - - - 0.40 1.59 532.73 - - - - - 615.32 Dallas El Paso 15.07 - - - - - - - - - 17.23-0.30 13.67 - - - - - 46.27 El Paso Ft. Worth 49.16 - - - - - - - - - - - 2.98 110.27 0.95 - - - 0.01 163.37 Ft. Worth Houston 65.89 - - - - - - - - - - 2.66 1.78 226.70 - - - - - 297.03 Houston Laredo 42.13 - - - - - - - - - 15.22 1.07 2.42-0.01 - - - - 60.85 Laredo Lubbock 36.74 - - - - - - - - - - - 1.16 36.00 - - - - - 73.90 Lubbock Lufkin 24.20 - - - - - - - - - - - 2.46 - - - - - - 26.66 Lufkin Odessa 21.79 - - - - - - - - - - - 2.58 - - - - - - 24.37 Odessa Paris 36.47 - - - - - - - - - - - 3.77 - - - - - - 40.24 Paris Pharr 38.19 - - - - - - - - - 41.80-3.40 16.30 - - - - - 99.69 Pharr San Angelo 15.41 - - - - - - - - - - - 2.50 - - - - - - 17.91 San Angelo San Antonio 36.12 - - - - - - - - - - - 4.50 18.00 - - - - - 58.62 San Antonio Tyler 26.10 - - - - - - - - - - - 2.49 40.94 - - - - - 69.53 Tyler Waco 44.89 - - - - - - - - - - 0.85 2.17 - - - - - - 47.91 Waco Wichita Falls 16.91 - - - - - - - - - - - 2.57 - - - - - - 19.48 Wichita Falls Yoakum 39.33 - - - - - - - - - - - 2.22 10.00 - - - - - 51.55 Yoakum (ABL) Abilene MPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (ABL) Abilene MPO (AMA) Amarillo MPO - - 3.61 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3.61 (AMA) Amarillo MPO (ATL) Texarkana MPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (ATL) Texarkana MPO (AUS) CAMPO TMA - 50.70 - - - - 64.83-1.96 - - - - - - - - 0.90-118.39 (AUS) CAMPO TMA (BMT & HOU) HGAC TMA - - - - 106.42-157.81-26.23 - - - - - - - - 1.90-292.36 (BMT & HOU) HGAC TMA (BMT) JHORTS MPO - - 9.25 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.99 - - 10.24 (BMT) JHORTS MPO (BRY) Bryan-College Station MPO - - 0.05 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.05 (BRY) Bryan-College Station MPO (CRP) Corpus Christi TMA - 0.09 - - - - 13.08-1.63 - - - - - - - - 0.20-15.00 (CRP) Corpus Christi TMA (DAL, FTW & PAR) NCTCOG TMA - 131.83 - - 87.29-168.48-24.01 - - - - 18.94 - - 3.33 - - 433.88 (DAL, FTW & PAR) NCTCOG TMA (ELP) El Paso TMA - 109.79 - - 18.66-37.24-3.90 - - - - - - - 5.13 0.57-175.29 (ELP) El Paso TMA (LRD) Laredo TMA - - 0.04 - - - 12.16-1.20 - - - - - - - - - - 13.40 (LRD) Laredo TMA (LBB) Lubbock TMA - - - - - - - - 1.20 - - - - - - - - - - 1.20 (LBB) Lubbock TMA (ODA) Midland-Odessa TMA - - 3.49 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3.49 (ODA) Midland-Odessa TMA (PAR) Sherman-Denison MPO - - 3.79 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3.79 (PAR) Sherman-Denison MPO (PHR) Harlingen-San Benito MPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (PHR) Harlingen-San Benito MPO (PHR) Hidalgo County TMA - - - - - - 17.06-3.68 - - - - - - - - 0.82-21.56 (PHR) Hidalgo County TMA (PHR) Brownsville TMA - 0.32 - - - - 8.69-1.10 - - - - - - - - - - 10.11 (PHR) Brownsville TMA (SJT) San Angelo MPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (SJT) San Angelo MPO (SAT) AAMPO - 63.75 - - - - 56.13-8.90 - - - - - - - - 1.03-129.81 (SAT) AAMPO (TYL) Tyler MPO - - 0.61 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.61 (TYL) Tyler MPO (TYL) Longview MPO - - 13.53 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13.53 (TYL) Longview MPO (WAC) Killeen-Temple TMA - - - - - - 10.68-1.10 - - - - - - - - - - 11.78 (WAC) Killeen-Temple TMA (WAC) Waco MPO - - 14.30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 14.30 (WAC) Waco MPO (WFS) Wichita Falls MPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (WFS) Wichita Falls MPO (YKM) Victoria MPO - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (YKM) Victoria MPO Bridge Division - - - - - 292.26 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 292.26 Bridge Division Traffic Division (HSIP) - - - - - - - 353.60 - - - - - - - - - - - 353.60 Traffic Division (HSIP) Design Division - - - - - - - - 143.46 - - - - - - - - - - 143.46 Design Division TAP (PTN) - - - - - - - - 13.78 - - - - - - - - - - 13.78 TAP (PTN) Federal Railway-Highway Safety - - - - - - - 22.26 - - - - - - - - - - - 22.26 Federal Railway-Highway Safety Railroad Grade Crossing - - - - - - - - - 3.36 - - - - - - - - - 3.36 Railroad Grade Crossing Railroad Crossing, Congestion & Safety Mitigation - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Railroad Crossing, Congestion & Safety Mitigation Railroad Signal Maintenance - - - - - - - - - 1.10 - - - - - - - - - 1.10 Railroad Signal Maintenance Systemic Widening Program - - - - - - - 15.50 - - - - - - - - - - - 15.50 Systemic Widening Program Priority Rural Highway Projects - - - - - - - 8.75 - - - - - - - - - - - 8.75 Priority Rural Highway Projects Texas Parks and Wildlife - - - - - - - - - 10.00 - - - - - - - - - 10.00 Texas Parks and Wildlife Landscape Incentive Awards - - - - - - - - - 3.59 - - - - - - - - - 3.59 Landscape Incentive Awards Americans with Disabilities Act - - - - - - - - - 11.47 - - - - - - - - - 11.47 Americans with Disabilities Act TAP Flex - - - - 4.57 - - - 36.32 - - - - - - - - - - 40.89 TAP Flex Green Ribbon - - - - - - - - - 14.24 - - - - - - - - - 14.24 Green Ribbon Federal Lands Access Program - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Federal Lands Access Program Strategic Partnership Agreement with Webb County RMA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Strategic Partnership Agreement with Webb County RMA Strategic Partnership Agreement with Hidalgo County RMA - - - - - - - - - - - - - 26.46 - - - - - 26.46 Strategic Partnership Agreement with Hidalgo County RMA Strategic Partnership Agreement with Cameron County RMA - - - - - - - - - - - - - 14.60 - - - - - 14.60 Strategic Partnership Agreement with Cameron County RMA Strategic Priority Safety Maintenance Energy (SMEP) - - - - - - - - - - - - - 409.70 - - - - - 409.70 Strategic Priority Safety Maintenance Energy (SMEP) Statewide 3.35 - - - - - - - - - - - - 30.00 - - - - - 33.35 Statewide Energy Sector 201.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 201.00 Energy Sector Statewide Unallocated - - - - - - - - - - - - - (60.22) - - - - - (60.22) Statewide Unallocated Total $ 1,086.88 $ 356.48 $ 48.67 $ - $ 231.60 $ 292.26 $ 546.16 $ 400.11 $ 268.47 $ 43.76 $ 74.25 $ 4.98 $ 68.00 $ 1,722.71 $ 0.96 $ - $ 9.45 $ 5.42 $ 0.09 $ 5,160.25 Total 11/10/2014 3:53 PM