Central Florida Legislative Delegation, Ad Hoc Committee on Transportation : briefing materials

Central Florida Legislative Delegation, Ad Hoc Committee on Transportation : briefing materials

Material Information

Central Florida Legislative Delegation, Ad Hoc Committee on Transportation : briefing materials
Central Florida Legislative Delegation, Ad Hoc Committee on Transportation
University of South Florida. Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Transportation--Florida--Planning ( lcsh )
Urban transportation--Florida--Planning ( lcsh )
letter ( marcgt )

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:
C01-00022 ( USFLDC DOI )
c1.22 ( 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 ntm 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 008 s flunnn| ||||ineng
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00022
2 110
Central Florida Legislative Delegation, Ad Hoc Committee on Transportation.
0 245
Central Florida Legislative Delegation, Ad Hoc Committee on Transportation : briefing materials
Tampa, Fla
b Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
c 1995 February
Urban transportation--Florida--Planning
University of South Florida. Center for Urban Transportation Research.
1 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.22


Central Florida Legislative Delegation Ad Hoc CommiHee on Transportation Briefing aterials February 1.J 1995 CUTR Center for Urban Transportation Research Unlvcrstty of South Florida


Ad Moe COIIIIT ... Oft Tt'.........,..... 1


IRIEFING MATERIALS Contents "lntennodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Conference Report" (excerpts).... 11 "Statewide Planning, Metropolitan Planning, Rule," Federal Register, Part II, Department of Transportation, 23 CFR Part 450; 49 CFT Part 61 (excerpts)... ... ... . ... .. ... . .. 19 Laws of Florida, Ch 93-104 (excerpts)... .... ..... ..... ...... ..... ... . ... ..... . ..... .... .. .... ... .... . ........ 31 I STEA s Impact Re i nventing Planning Under ISTEA-MPOs and State DOTs"........ .. ......... 39 "The FTA-fHWA MPO Reviews-Plann ing Practice under the ISTEA and the CAAA" .. .. ....... 45 "Review of the Transportation Planning Process in the Houston Metropolitan Area (excerpts)............................... .. . .......... .. .. ..... ..... .. ..... ..... ..... ...... ... .... 65 "Review of the Transportation Planning Process i n the Chicago Metropoman Area (excerpts) .. .... ... ... ..... ...... .. ........... ..... ... .. ............ .. ................. .... .... ...... ... 69 "Review of the Transportation Planning Process in the Southern California Metropolitan Area (excerpts)................................................... .. .... .. ...... .. .... .. ... .. ... ... .. .... ... 75 Review of the Transportation Planning Process in the Minneapo l is-St. Paul Metropolitan Area" (excerpts) . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. ... . .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 79 Review of the Transportation Planning Process in the Pittsburgh Metropolitan Area (excerpts)............................ ..... ... ...... .... ... ..... ..... .. .... ... ... ............... ... .. 83 "Review of the Transportation Planning Process i n the Kansas City Metropoman Area" (excerpts) .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .... . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. .. 87




INUIPING MATERIALS Excerpts from USDOTs METROPOLITAN PLANNING RULE BASED ON ISTEA Redesignation of an MPO "Redesignation [of an MPO) shall occur by agreement of the Governor and affected local of govern ment representing 75 percent of the population in the entire metropolitan area. The central city(ies) must be among the of local government agreeing to the redesignation." 23 CFR 450 .306 (d) Revocation of an Existing MPO Designation "Existing MPO designations remain valid until a new MPO is redesignated, unless revoked by the Gover nor and local of government rep!'8S811ting 75 percent of the population in the area ... or as otherwise provided under State or local procedures." 23 CFR 450.306 (f) Voting Membership "The voting membership of an MPO policy body designated/ redesignated subsequent to December 18. 1991 and serving a TMA [urbanized area over 200.000 population). mU$1 include representation of local elected otlicials, otlicials of agencies that administer or operate major modes or systems of transportation ... and appropfiate State officials" 23 CFR 450 .306 ( i ) Planning Boundary "The planning area boundary shaU, as a minimum, cover the urbanized areas and the contig uous geographic areas likely to become urbanized with the twenty year forecast period .... 23 CFR 450.308 (a) Excerpts from CH. 93, LAWS OF FLORIDA Designation of MPO "Each MPO shall be created and operated under the provisions of the section pursuant to an interlocaJ agreement..." Ch. 93-164, 339.175, (1)(b) Voting Membership The voting membership .... shall consist of not fewer than 5 or more than 19 apportioned members, the exact number to be determined on an geographic-population ratio basis by the Governor, based on an agreement among the affected of general purpose local govemment .... County commission members shall compfise not less than one-third of the MPO membership, except for an MPO more than 15 members located in a a five-member county commission or an MPO 19 members located in a county no more than 6 county commissioners, in which case county commission mem bers may compose less than one-third of the MPO membership, but all five county commissioners must be members ..... 5


6 All voting members shall be elected officials of general purpose governments, except that an MPO may include as part of its apportioned voting members, a member of a statutonly authorized planning board or an official of an agency that operates or administers a major mode of transportation. In metropolitan areas in which autholities or other agencies have been .... c:reated ... to pefform transportation functions that ate not under the jurisd iction of a general-purpose local government represented on the MPO, they shaU be provided voting membership on the MPO." Ch. 93-164, 339.175 (2)(a) ... Any county chartered under ... the State Constitution may elect to have its county commission serve as the MPO if the MPO jurisdiction Is wholly contained within the county ..... the governor must appoint three additional voting members to the MPO, one of whom must be an elected official representing a municipali ty withi n the county, one of whom must be a person who does not hold eleded public office and who resides i n the unincorporated portion of the county, and one of whom must be a school board member." Ch. 93-164, 339.175 (2)(b) "The Governor shall prescribe a method for appointing aHemate members who may vote at any MPO meeting ..... An appointed &Hemate member must be an elected official S8fVing the same governmental entity .... ... Representatives of the department shaH seMI as nonvoting members ." Ch. 93-164, 339.175 (3}(a} Powers, Duties, and Responsibilities "It is the intent of this section that each MPO shall be in volved In the planning and programming of transportation facilities, including, but not limtted to, airports, intercity and high-speed ralllines seaports, and intermodal to the extent permitted by state or federal law." An Article Reprinted from TR NEWS, November..[)ecember 1994, "REINVENTING PLANNING UNDER ISTEA: MPOS AND STATE DOTS" This article provides an overview of the responses of MPOs across the nation to ISTEA. It may be of interest to the members Among other things, notes that aboul44 percent of all MPOs are staffed by regional councils. The others are staffed by individual cities, counties, or city-county planning commis sions. or they are freestanding entities. An Article Reprinted at the 1994 Transportation Research Board Meeting, "THE FT A-FHWA REVIEWS-PLANNING PRAcnCE UNDER THE ISTEA AND THE CAAA" This article, written by William Lyons, is a summary of progress being made by USDOT in reviewing the compliance of various MPOs with the requirements of ISTEA. It may be of interest to the members The article is followed by exCil!J)Is from several of the individual certification reviews. These USDOT reviews, as well as some information gathered by CUTR staff, are summarized on the following pages.


MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL METROPOLITAN AREA MPO--Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities MEMBERs--seventeen members appointed by the Governor, with the consent of the state senate. Sixteen members represent geographic districls; the chair represents the region as a whole. Members are appointed for a four year term, and are not pennitted to be elected officials. IMPORTANT OTHER The Coo neil relies on the Transportation Ar:Msory Board (TAB) to manage the 3-C process. The TAB is responsible for assigning funding priorities and adopting programs. The Council may approve or disapprove a program in whole or in pan. but wi not modify H. If modifica tions are required, the TAB determines the form of resubmission to the Council. The TAB has been comprised of 30 members: 17 represent counties and munidpalitfes, all of wbom are elected officjals 4 represent state or regional agenciesMnDOT. Alrpott Commission, air pollution control agency, and transit board 8 represent the public (appointments made by Council) 1 Chair, appointed by Council, usuaRy a dtlzen The TAB has a Technical Advisory CommHtee, comprised of engineers, planners, and other technical staff, which advises the TAB. There are also a number of special purpose advisory subcommittees, as well as a Citizens Advisory Committee. RECENT DEVELOPMENTs-ReaJntly, the transit board and commission have been disbanded, with lilA operation of the transit system placed under lilA Metropolttan Council. In addition, the Council was recently given responsibility for wastewater treatment As a result of this, the Metropolitan Council is transitfoning from a planning agency with 150 staff members, to a planning and operating agency with over 4000 staff members. TAXING AUTHORITYThe Metropolitan Council has had long-standing regional ad valorem taxing authority, which generates a few million dollars a year for planning adivitfes. They now have an ad valt> rem taxing authority for transit operations. The Metropolitan Council has long had regional taxing author!-' ty, whereby approximately 30% of the tax revenues from new developments in the region are allocated to member jurisdictions by the Metropolitan Co\Jncil. CHICAGO METROPOLITAN AREA MPO-The Chicago Area Transportation Study Policy CommHtee State DOT Secretary Regional Transportation Authority Executive Director Regional Planning Commission President 8 local government reps-primarily high level administrators 7 transponation operations agencies (loU, transit, etc) -rilix of chairs and administrators FHWA Division Administrator FT A Area Diredor 7


a PITTSBURGH METROPOUTAN AREA MPOThe Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission MEMBERS:-There are 41 voting members: 30 members five from each of sO< counties (two county commissioners, an elected local official, and 2 citizen appointees) 5 members-City of Pittsburgh (the mayor, a city councilperson, and three appointed by the mayor) 2 members transit operators 4 members from state agencies PennDOT(2 reps), Penn OER, Gov. Office of Policy There are also 5 nonvoting members representing federal, state, and local agencies. OTHER COMM/TTEE$Transportatlon Policy Committee-oversees long range plan Transportation Technical Committeeengineers, planners, etc. Operators' Committee SOUTHERN CAUFORNIA METROPOLITAN AREA MPO-Southem California Association of Governments is the MPO for nine urbaniZed areas in Southern California (virtually all, except for San D iego) MEMBER$-SCAG's General Assembly is comprised of elected oflk:lals representing each of the 6 counties and 180 cities in the region. Each city and county gets one vote except for Los Angeles County and Los Angeles City, two and three delegates, respectively. The General Assembly meets annually. SCAG also has a Regional Council, made up of 70 elected officials representing 62 planning districts and the six member counties. The Regional Council meets monthly and implements the goals of the General Assembly. OTHER COMMITTEEs-The Regional Council has created three standing committees-lmplementation, Planning, and Administration, as well as three poHcy advisory committees, one of which is transportation. There is also a Regional Advisory Council, comprised of private and non-profit interests to contribute. HOUSTON METROPOUTAN AREA MPO-The Houston-Galveston Area Council is the Goverror's designated MPO, but a series of separate intergovernmental agreements effectively define the Councirs Transportation Policy Committee to function as !he MPO . MEMBERs-Membership of the Council consists of representatives of the thirteen counties and munici palities that comprise the planning area. M embership Is not extended to state or regional agencies which implement transportation improvements.


IRIEFING MATIRIALS However, the membership of the Transportation Policy Committee is limited to the eight counties consid ered to be part of the urbanized area. Its 21 members are as fOllOW$: 8 counties -1 member each, normaUy (though not necessarily) the chief elected otlicial of each county 2 from City of Houston-The mayO(s chief of staff, and one City council member 2 additional from Harris County-the county judge and the county engineer 4 other cities -each have one member, normally the city manager or a city counci l member 1 transit authority -the executive director 1 TxOOT -the district engineer 3 from the H-GAC -the executive director and two elected members OTHER the H-GAC is the MPO Board, the Transportation Planning Committee (TPC) manages the 3-C Planning Process. The TPC is comprised primarily of city and county engineers, planners and representatives of the operator and the state DOT They do not have a citizens advisory committee KANSAS CITY METROPOUTAN AREA MPO-The designated MPO is the Mid-America Regional Council, which relies on a Total Transportation Policy Committee to guide the transportation planning process. MEMBERsThe MARC Board of Directors is comprised of 30 elected officials, representing local coun ties and municipalities. All transportation decisions flow through the Tota l Transportation Policy Commit tee, with 40 members, which includes technical members of the general public, and both elected and appointed otlicials. There is considerable cross-membership by elected officials on both boards. The MARC Board has adopted a policy which calls for returning unacceptable decisions to the Transporta tion Policy Committee for revision rather than reshaping policies at the Board level. OAHU METROPOLITAN AREA (Report not yet available) MPO-Comprised of a combination of city council members and state legislators. SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND URBANIZED AREA MPOThe Metropolitan Transportation Commission is the MPO for the San Francisco Bay Area, which is comprised of 9 counties and 100 cities. The MTC is a special-purpose transportation planning agency. It does not have comprehensive or land use planning responsibility. MEMBER$-The MTC Board is made up of 16 voting and 3 non-voting members: 14 members represent counties and cities the more populous counties get 2 members, one appointed by county board and one appointed by the county association of mayors. The less populous counties get one member, nominated by the county association of mayors and approved by the county board. C-fllrNnTr--,..9


1 member represents the Association of Bay Area Governments the council of governments for the Bay Area, v.ilich has land use planning responsibilities 1 member represents the San Francisco Bay ConseM!tion and Development Commission, which has regulatory responsibility for wetlands in close proximity to the Bay. 3 non-voting membersUSOOT, HUD, and the Califomia Business, T ransportation and Housing Agencies (normally represented by CAL TRANS) OTHER RESPON$18/UTIES-The MTC has very llmHed responsibility for operating functions They instaU and maintain the emergency callbox system in the Bay Area, but the Highway Pa1rol actually receives and responds to calls MTC also operates tow truck patrols on major highways. TAXING AUTHORITY-The legislature designated a portion of the bridge toll revenues to MTC to allocate to important regional projects. The legislature designated a portion of the BART sales tax to MTC for allocation to BART feeder services. The MTC i s pursu ing with the legislature a regional fuel tax that would allow them to allocate additional revenues to important regional facilities. I n all cases. they contract wHh loca l agencies to implement projects funded wHh revenues from these sources OTHERThe Bay Area also has two directiy elected transH boards-Bay Area Rapid TransH (BART) and Alameda County TransH. 10






50 1 7


Part II Department of Transportation flderal Highw.y Admlnlstntlon Fedenll Admlnl.tratloft 23 CfA Plrt 4SO 41 CfR Part 113 Statewide Plannlnv, Metropolitan Planning; f.lule


51170 ,, ... = n .,.,_ n.-...a."',_:.., 1, ldutlfy t.bll 'rlf' .. WI .. ,., .. ,,..., ....... t4S0.214.wt..-oo- tub q n'lY .,,.au ad S'l'IPir.t.JIIiil ...cbo p1oa lalddH 'loui""Jow thaD ) 1111>11Jl. liM. .. --..y ldc ll ly ulldaa piau ODd polld whicb. cu _... M tM c4Clal ploll S'nP o olBdol plu IIKNcllD&mploll, II appropci*. prla< w Jur-7 I, tttS. prvotclod tlooflill-. !drn&IW 1111450 zoe -.ldrrlll). 1ue,i11 C lid 1paa: n Tia ''"' r A11 *liMII ,..,. ....... ,_.,,n n. Olbpon .... Imp'--2:$ U .S.C. IM--1100 I oftbeF..-..J1\ wl>lclt. r.qWn ..... P lollnl,. ()pal-0001 be dw fpt&ed fiiJ( __. ....... _,.,.. ..& .... ll>o ..... COOl* lid ... -co.pr-.-'w l'"aapcatlldaa ,...,..,. pi'IO'tCI I I tblt II ia pldll 1M pr'CIIr'UM \Me I I d-alJ ......... ... ,.. ...... .ct .. IDCI ol i"t acutll. IDtormodol--l)'d=IMI locWIIt.o 1M oll!d&t. -1c olpooplo ODd pdo. --'"' -n.. .-pore-oppllc&ble'" ... del Ill die .. ,... proc11 1 ...... ........ ,.. ..... ..... I* Del lbcapt oQorwloo powloiod ID oubput A or thla put, clo4Dod bo Z3 U.S C I OI( o ).,. lblo P"' M "" do&Dod. tao .,,, ...,., ....... ,. ...... o. ....... ... .......... m. ,., DoGpll-"'-.,pollWo ,,. ..... .,._._ o.o'Orl ..... ollor O.C. mbor II, liMn olloD belr7 -- dMGo .. DOO(o) ODd IIDitaorl"-.1 IO.,.rllmlllla up I tiDe 7$ peK I 1 fll th o oJ!-=-1 -.,II tbo -.1 c:lly dtlow dol1Doc!lz7 tbo Ita 11 ol ... c y), or ca:huc tll.O..._. liJ 'ri tfn),h S.... llal ........ ---UZA ..


' -cif tl t-r ilfJ'aj 'tnrr if I IJl i'> i I I 1: E: I. ,a h t r' f II J a. r .. .. i I llJfe HI! d 1!! ;sfl Uti, _,., . ,.li.Jn rna-.n tuf'! 1.r"'nJ jr trU!ll ipih'! f li g ra f f I .1: J t f .. Z! J I: Ul!jl: u;.utntniHlftfi.Hinut n uuu I '--.____.....-


.... rolat.d .


Po' ill aosf' I Vol .. Na. J111 I.,.,_,.,, Odat M. lOa I h1ao ...t S11073 ollocla ODCI ohho pW. Gil tho h11.,..., c'l'lrallmeDI ,_..,.. to.,.... c:oordlAoUGII with resowa P-OD moM81"'1111 pl ..... Uld 1pptOprtoto -phMioCD l'ID.Ii>(llt&dasm.t.cl m cpMiltJ 9robfoma1D "'Pparl ol tlui Nllw.a of 23 U.S.C. 1o9!bl. md MdiOD14 of 23


oubmltoodbytMState ..... approwlby ..... ollftpncooo. 'nlluiopellllftpl-lllall-.ltlteb ID .. '"''"! ..... '!'' .. ialila propoMC!IImpUhd planntas tJ..-.oohllwDOII-to loe.....u.d. -olo-.!ofbeclaoo or proiood-eballloeiP-...... u ---. """' .. oiNo ....... lmpoo:l by tbo to tbo troupa!Wioa prob!.ma ID. Ilie triaoklfeo liN:h"''i fnle!Hpnt PHWA ...UPTA. : .. U'OI aad tJ..irCDIIIplU!ly, tbe powtb ftbldo lilclllfP"!'J ..,..U ..... lao *'l.....,loo IDOJ laod nto oftbe-[o.,_, fut. w.-t. .........,..,......, tboldepu ID dod-dloiiDOCIIf:r tbe ptOfoct aiDwl. tbuppaopriolof tbo flctDn ofa;;;ftd a,.uatai,IJid opallaa doolp C" .. ead ocope uauaed La apodhd IW -.ldontloa ID tb.le dwoo:loriJIIIICII!It ODCI ocupe ID .. Oalobll.ebecl. Anouxponoadaalool eftluat.tbeolllocll-ead.. (ITOWih ebould pw amoldonUoo to ID-ta ieploolj-(40 CFR pet 51). p'-'"8 pn>e oo eU of or .. ....,. Ia O'lalpl,.lacol. Slollt ODd .Oil WeltiriDs I rrl .....U.O on tbo aoa-J roquinmeata epodllod 1D DOII..W IDOla ead objec:d-. 11le oU,SWO lor r...do llllllorbod oador tbJa oubput. Ao o mlalml!lll, oil_. eaoJ}'IIa iihall-dor tho diNct ODd -.I, 8 _. :Ia ol tbe Fodorol omplOJID& e :c::1UIIod plannoa Ladlftct...,. olneox-ble Tnaoll 'Act [48 us.c. app. 11101. teon. p.-.. will to dmlop e ead ad!..,_ u maloWI)' ODCI 11221 _. ploDP',. ODd copitol llUIIPOitOtloa plan ID M lpplaoC by llloJWOI C-11; rrcloJ, OCUDOOiic; ead fluldo appoiiiG!iaeollll!dor lltJ. 23, tbo MI'O aad o TIP to loe opp.o...d by eariml-tolollooto; uJecr...,.... a ebollloeiDdudod 1D tbe tboMI'OODdtbeeo...mor. UPWP.liCWAQ.SD".NHS.oroch (d) Tbe mOIIDpC!Iitan tnnlpOrlatloa ODd -zy copltol r...do odmiP'I'III by tbo pl.uullDa p,_ ebelllltclua. PHWA on IJ!IIhM! b tbJa tbe pnpontion of,...bic.ol Olld ochor (d)'t1io. moJor ID .. III -!lti!dlu odymllll oleo loelacludod La the TIP. nporte todocwaontotlo11 ortbe wiU-u tbe "oltanlatl-..wy.e" (I) WI!.-tJ.. ea-.utol proceeo dovolopmoat...S..ement. aad updotoof I'IQ\IIIedbfooc:sloo 3(1)(t)(A)oltl)o boo boeaCII!IlplotaclODd olocaldor tba tnnepcm.dlou pion. no nporta F.a..J Tronoll Ad (41 U.S. C. epp. Docllllou or Fine! I pi of No Slsai8CODt uhollloe noaoaobJy evollable to t80Z(IJ)b cortola prolocte bwlllc:b lmpod bao boH oiiDod. S C0.318 dou ill-..! pon1oo. ccmlll .. llt wltb dloc:MIOOOIJ ooc:sloo 3 .._ Slazt" IIOioJIPiy. WI!.-ti.e .-..to! s fuDdJDc 1o biotae oouabl. no .....u.o ,,_ bao ..... Initiated but noc will oloo loe oeod u ill. Prillw1 _,.. :::rlolocl.lbt FIIWA ODd tbe FfA I"'U11 llct 21 ahn ..,.,,,rtadoft ofillform.atloo fartbeO(h.,IKtfoa Mc:aualteclOD appropriate plaN ... pu Clll: ...,_ 3(l)(t)(A) Sec:nwialB.odlnp OD COlt modUJcedoat to lllMt the ',.,... effwdiv ..... localftnadal ofthlt MCII.oa. (o) When tbe Dood !or omojor c:ommltmoutOJlel copoc:ity,mobWty motropotltan trouportatloa ID-oot lmprovo-ta. oovlroumootol boaollt.l, a ldootlftecl. ODd F'odtrol fuDdo &N oc:oaomlc -IOpiOeat. openllPs po1e11tlolly Lavolvocl,mo)ot IDvwttatDt oflld....,, ole. (corridor or 1\lbuoo) etudloo ebellloe (o) 1btiot mo)or La-etudlu undertakou to -lop or niiDo tho plOD oJoo will. wbeD opproptloto, _.. u tbe and lood to dec:iaiODO br tbo MPO. ill Ollolyslo of deawid rochoc:tlou ...... cooporot!oa wltb portlclpollDa qonclos. opent!OPol JIIOD080II)eJit - oa 11M doiiiBP ...... pt onel ocopoo or tbo J>lli?U:ODI to 23 CFR 500.509. illvottmooL When tho dloo hove not (Q A mojor La-eat etudy will booo prior to plOD epprowl, IDclodo ea-..tol etucllu wj11cb tho provleioae of S 450.322(b)(8) epply. willloe oeod b ....v...-t.1 (bJ Whoa ODJ of tbe tmplomeatli!a cloc:llllleata u duolbod La ponsnpha qeadoo or tbo MPO wish to Laltloto e (1){1) OPel [2) oftb.la uctlou: major illvootaiOCit study. e mootlns will (!) Ao e mlalmom 11M portldpollDa be c:onv.aocl to dacormlnt tbt extent of -du wllluu tbe mojor -nt tbt ODil)'MI ODd 081!1CY roltl La I etudy U Input to OP ea-taJ c:oopontln prwhlcb IDvolvoo 11M lmpoct otatomoot or eaY!ra-tol MPO. tho State doportmoal of __ pro!>Oiod eubooqu&t to tbo trarupor1Atloa. pubUc u.nlllt open ton. c:omplovidod fer dt!Da.s and into-od lllcllllioa of tbe mojor tnaepactotloa pwoalltclocllnt offoctod pubUc In-eat La 11M plOD ODd 11M TIP tbe q e ndoo, "'P,_toUvoe o( porlidpoliDC qeDcioo moy roqtbo transportoUoll apacy oraploYMf ond developiDIIItofiiDo lea-taJ privoto pn>vidon of trouportat!OD to dodeion docwnoata roqulrod uador t&SOW M pa'h8hftriPIP11dM IN'IDII .. fleldM. lftMIIIIMM .,.-. (e) Ao roquiNd by tJ.. p!'DYII(OIIC or 11M moaop-oyetom nauJ.otio .. 23 CFR pet 500. wltblD .U mocropoUWI p1annin8 anu. the caDplliOD -51111. pobUc lroPaportatioa. oad l.at..-modaJ ml"ftllmD1 l)steml. to tht oxtODI epptOJ>rlalw. ebellloe pet of tbe IMtropolltaD plannlnl procoao roqulnd onder w provloioae or 23 U.S. C. ll4 ODCI 4t U.S.C. epp. 1807. [b)IDTMAo......,..tedu noaattelnmeat far 0&001 or c::uboD moaoxldo. Poderol fuDdo moy aot loe P.........-.1 for ODJ project that will iooWt ID oliBPIIIcaat IDc:nooo ID conyiDa copodiJ b oiD&lo oo:upOJ1t volticloo (e ,_ ...,..t pwpoeo hlpwoy oa e DeW locat!ou 0. odclina .......... pwpooo IODoo. willa 11M """'""!oa of oollqr lmp-ta or tbo oUm tlou of -.....:b) ualou tho praj:l ,...,.. from I CUD!IIIIiOD' .........., .. i)-am (Ool$) IDOOIIDg tbo nqulromeata of zs CPR pet 500, 1\l&pet E. SW:b prujoctl obol1 l.aCOipONll .U _.,ebly onlloble -tosl to JDIMIJO 11M SOY fldUty olfl5dl"l7 (or to flclll-111 mODOIJOCileal Ill tbe Other tnvol demOlld rodw:tlou ODd


. ......... II I Vol. 5I, No. w I nanciay OoliAIIr"II,1113/Jtulelllld ....... !11075 \


s.o7l Fedenl ... I I I Vol sa. No 207 I lbunday, Zl, -I .... 8ld ....-..


,..._ .. s' 'a I VoL 58. No. 2117 I Tbrodoy, Oct._ .. lllal. ..d ......... St07 7


.4 ,...... &tall fE '"tScaa.. (lo)(1) tbo period pdar lo tbo 111118&:--1111 of""' a.s lD TWA. sc-. the public ope--. mol ""'-oporoton ol m.jo< mod. ol """'por!AIIOD obaiiU = ldoa tbo locatlcm oftbo moot-.... aD pn>OJ.ma 1D tbo mocropoUtaD .,.. ""d prOcood with tU cloYoiopiDODI of ac:IIODOto oddtMs th-Pjocl t11at w!li...Wt Ia -ID SOY capodty Ia ptopou 4. T!alo lD&I,m ...... dom...-to bow lu ouda "'"'"'* ""'101.o o llml natlna tbo tMOd lot adpcorporadoo l.oto tbo SOY tociUty IIIOU m\Ut be """mUted to by l!lo St&tt mol tbo MPO lor lmplomaDttdou l.o l !!moly IDIDDV but DO lator t.blD C:Omplotloo Of CODiltNCIIoa oll!lo SOY tociUty U tbo.,. dDOC olroody baw aiNlll c maoo....,..,t ODd prognm. tbo MllbULbmau t of ouch p10p11110 IIIUIII be o port of tbo oommltmonL (3)1D n&Aolllot.,.. -tl&bt.tuct for carbo D "'ODOlddo 111.ci/D1-tba WPO.o Slata aocll 11 # _%'" -r1101""-ap4 1--lllc r.s-.1 tuDda tta.t puuut rr """'Ilea"' capedly-.. SOVt (oM! .. "'"'T'-wtatba -.lle7 '-fN e e ,. tM ell m i .,.,_ ol boctJelcD. 1 MW Wtbl NiP A pr .. 111--ao IIIUrla O..S Ia ID Jll-that -tba -Ia poropopll.t lbKtl aod lbKZl of lhlt McliGD ODd tU piOjod ..alia'-tbJa It) Projocta that .,. port alar couo'ct wll!lo SlollODdalod COIII8111iCBa ...... IIW! ijiCWIIplaD ue .... ouloloct to tbo poropopll.t lb)(1) attd lb)(Z) ollhla (S) J'Jojodt odnotctd beJ 1 Dd llle NEPA P'"' I I at ol April a, 1112 ODd wblcb ... bolq t.ploat lllltd. ..... r1&)1:4f.woy oc:quilltlcm-"opp""""'-w!ll be d II &I d 10 bo prosruDIDtCI oacl DCIIIIIbjocllo tbJo (S) Atiii>Cb limo u o bol CNS Ia twly oporot!ODAI tbo ,-.... ol f 450.3ll)(b ) opp ly en vr AIIIITAHC:a AHD STANOAADI z. no outhortty dt.llloa lor port eu II added ad tho outbority dfar tubpart& A. I. ODd C.,. -od, to Arl IIJ. 2:1 U.S.C tot(t).IOI. 1J4. 211, 307 Jll ODd U.; U U..C. :lt, 42:13, 4S32 1 410 -41 u.a.c.-1101. 1101 110M. 1 .... 1to7, 1to7o. Md1UZ:-41 CPR 1.11(1) Md 3. Suhputo A aDd I ol port Ill -""'-1 to rlfld U W)owa:


This is a blank page


t : 3 1l 1 E .: .: c i l !i! . I !5 "i :. 8 f, i .. !: . . . ll If . . . . I So:l . .. "' :0


:-_ ,M_. _____ ,, --M , . .. ....... .... . ...... -. .. l . I! 1!. r .., i t ;tl t&l lU 'i tel" n at! .. . -. . ,. .. .. (') l" ..


. -.. 1 i ' .. .. 1 .. (J I '' a ; 9 .. .. 0 = :J l :


... ... .. .a ., -.. s ... ... Q "' -.. -' : ) J1 11 . j1 l!Liil il..g . ......... l u ' l i ; I I ; c I 1:3 .; : l -. ; 9 i ; I i . c . 1l s : I


.. -: .. I -l i .i l f li 1-':' i t t I .. I i 1 hlii 1 M x 1 t i H . li . . !:


n: f"lf f j 1 . .; . ; .; .; l : . . . . . c 11 f.. i j : I '" = = d 14 ,. : ; ;I iii I ; i .. .. 0 0 -


: -: ; -: .. Q ..j i ] J j 1 d .. U1J 1 .. 11 11 H HH -e j 3 ,.1 .:1 : Htl1 1 1.a i '-1'11 1!.t.! ..: ....... .. -= t . ) ,j.. lt I J . ;_.i .. . Jt "i :: :j$ li l : ll H j i_ lf1l .: if i ::l :1 l t li

This is a blank page


The feder.ll govmunent depends on the 50 state departments of transportal ion and 340 menopolitan transponation p lanning organizations (J) to help achieve h.s sur face tra nsportation goals. Both types of organiutions have existed for many years, evolving gradually to meet changin g needs and circumstances; now they are on th e thresho l d of fundamental change because of the enactment of the lntennodal Surface T ranspona1ion Efficiency Act of 1991 and its imp lement ing regulations ISTEA envisions not only that each SOOT and MPO wiU chonge in many fun damen1al ways but also that they will become more closely linktd. Nothing short of changing the corporate cultures in these organizations will suffice. Seeds o Change Driving the need for fundamental change is a new three-part philosophy r egarding lSTEA: the nations transponation decision making should be (a) decentl'llllzed, (b) more fritndly to the environment. and (c) more responsive to the needs o increas ingly diverse popubtions and businesses. DecentraJization lSTEA h.as resulted in decentrallzing trans. potl3lion deci5ion motking, tn part by doWD$tzing the explicitly mapped fedml aid h i ghway system from about 830,000 Bruct D. McDowtl! is 01rector, Govemmtn t Polic,v Research. U.S. Advisory Commission o l"urgo\ltrnm.e-ncGl RtiGtions. Under ISTEA BRUCE D. McDOWEtt miles (categorized as lntersrace, primary. secondary, and urban) 10 about 160 ,000 miles (in a single national highway srs tem). At the same time, eligibility for fed c.ral highway funds has been extended to non loa I streets approved by the state and metropolitan planning processes. These: changes give greater responsibilily to state and local governments for 670 ,000 miles of. preViously d esignated federal-aid highways and increase U\e total mileage o{ h i ghways thot are eligible for fed=! funding. (n addition, tSTEA provides for in creased nex-ibility in the use of federal surface transportation funds Modal cations o[ most federal uansponation funds are left to 1he state and metropoli tan planning proceM es and to the state and local stakeholders involved in those processes. To remove anificial funding biases the matching ratios for federal transportation grants have been equalized among most programs ISTEA also provides for giving the brger MPOs the lead In planning nd programming projects to be funded with about 20 percent of the money authorized by the act and MPO-SOOT cooperation is required in spending state -co ntrolled ISTEA funds within the MPO region. Fur thennore, the expansion of MPO bound aries-to encompass the urban growth horizon and the 1ir (\Uality region-may increas e the territorial reach of the decentralized decision making by many MPOs. Environmental Connections ISTEA and the Clean Air Act (CAA) >re very dosely tied together. Under these actS. the 195 MPOs that serve areas where the air qoality violates federal standards must clean the air by a sped!lc deadline ( FHWA, unpublished data). Transport cion plans in 1hese: nonattainment areas must conform to the State Imp lementa tion Plan (SIP), appro ved by the U S Environmental Protection Agency, for cleaning the air. State and regional air quality agencies work with SOOTs and MPOs in preparing transportation p lans and implementation programs to comp l y whh EPA regulations. I { these a i r quality agencies determine th.at the don plans for nonattainment areas do not conform to SlP. the plans may have to be reworked to avoid loss of federal trans ponation funds, EPA constraints on development. the substitution or a federal plan or l awsuits Five MPOs, which have met the federal air quallty standards over the past two years and are known as mairuenance artas. must continue to conform lO air quality ma i ntenance plan5 to ensure that their regions do not slip back into noncompli ance (FHWA, unpublished data) Several addit iona l MPOs are expected to achieve this status soon. A total of 200 of the 340 MPOs are directly affected by CAA. ISTEA earmarks Sl billion per year in special funds to help meet these air quality n:ds. Nevertheless. attaining the federol standards will not be e.asy i n many areas. Signi6cant changes for ita n populations may be required to conform to SIP. For examp le, new forms of urb an de velopment and limitations on the use of singleoccupant automobiles are being cons i dered. TR J n. Novembu-Oecembtr l994


Other federal environmental protection st3ndards that need increaseq auen tion by SOOTs and MPOs are protection of wetlands. cleanup of urban storm water runoff, and the transportation of hazardous materials. Nont!'lldltional Goals and Stakeholders The appropria t eness and priorities of transportation projects and systems increasingly are being evaluated to determine conuibutions toward achieving such goa.ls a.s (a) improved international compet itiveness; (b) energy (t) domestic economic development and jobs; (d) equality of access, opponunity, and mobility for underserved and disadvan taged populations; (e) historic preserva tion; (/) neighborhood preservation; and (g) renewed vitality of central cities. These goals ar< not those of the traditional transportation decision makers ; they are the goals of those who now nd to be included in the transportation planning process. IS TEA requirements for broader planning and greattr public lnvolvement re:inR;rce these new directions. The implica tion for SOOTs and MPOs is that they must prepare and implement plans to demonstrate measurable contributions toward achieving broader social goals Some SDOTs and MPOs have begun this task. Their approach is to identify goals and performance measures that indicate progress toward achieving the desired outcomes not mere l y to measure changes in the transportation system Geographic and Institutional Complications Even if SDOTs and MPOs adjust their organizations and programs in accordance w ith the new goals established by ISTEA and CAA in many cases there is no clear path to success. The institutions with whom they must work do not match the boundaries of the areas i n which they must work. For example. the urbanized areas (UZAs) and air quality regions that are the focus of !STEA and CM fre quently sprawl across state lines and local government jurisdiclions As a result. 4 6 MPOs s.erve more th.an one state and must coordinate with more than one SDOT (FHWA, unpublished data). The UZA$ are defined by the U.S. Bureau o the Census without regard to governmental boundaries. They are simply geographi c areas of urban settlement with a population of at least 50.000 and a density of at least 1,000 persons per sq-uare mile. Thus the size, shape, and number of UZAs change afler each dtcen nial population census. In turn, the size, shape, and number of MPOs may be changed. By this process the number of MPOs has grown from 218 in 1972 to 3'10 today (2,3) tn addition, UZAs somctimts overrun the boundaries of previously established MPOs or grow so large that state and local officials choose to use more th.an Conversely, fedenlllaw allows a single MPO to suve more than one UZA. The use of this option is illustrated by the fact that the 33 new UZAs recognized after the 1990 census resulted in only 12 new MPOs. The other UZAs are served by preexisting MPOs Overall, 396 UZAs are served by 310 MPOs A new lSTEA requirement is that MPOs encompass the territory where urban growth is expected to occur during the next 20 years plus the air quality region in nonanainment areas Another provision altows induston of the whole metropolitan area (providing the governor and the loc.al governmentS agree). These provisions may increase the number and size o interstate MPOs, the size ofMPOs that lie within a single state and the number of unified transportation FlGUR'E 1 Typical panlc-lpants In the metropoHun planning organiz.atlon process {no two processes arc struc1ura.Uy alike:). one MPO to serve the area At the present time. 14 contiguously urbanized are3.S withi n a single State ha\'t two or more MPOs Among the UZ.As. sev eral are served by more than one MPO Examples include Chicago. Memphis. New York, and Portland planning areas that are served by multiple MPOs. More complex MPOs may be ere ated: however. the inclusion of wh ol e metropo litan areas (b)' agreement of governor and officials) could sim plify governmem:tl rtlllionships in some are01s. TR Nc1vs I i5. No,embet-Dtc embcr


Consolidated metropolitan areas {where two or more metropolitan. a reas have grown together such as Baltimore. Mary land, and Washington, D.C. ) are likely to have two or more MPOs that are serving what has become a single transportation marketplace. Coordination of MPOs in such areas 1$ required. When these multi ple MPOs are within a sing l e state, the SOOT and governor may help bring them logether. When they are in more than one state, the U.S. Department ofTransporta t ion has a responsibility under ISTEA to ensure that MPOs are brought together. In interstate areas, areawide MPOs may be helpful in bringing SOOTs together. The DOT role in inttntate coordination is viewed only as a backup res-ponsibility Pre-ISTEA SDOTs and MPOs Any consideration of how to adapt SOOTs and MPOs to IS TEA must include recognizing the differences in their cur rent st:atus One SOOT is a$ different rom another as is one MPO from another. Although four types of MPOs are recogn ized in lSTEA :md they are treated dif ferently with respect to funding priorities and required responsibilities, there is no differentiation of SOOTs SOOTs Until about two decades ago, most SOOTs were simply highway departmentS or were separately elected highway com miss ions largely or completely indepen dent of the governor. Now. most are accountable to the governor and have responsibilities beyond highways Federal legislation has encouraged most SOOTs to take on some transit responsi.bilities Several have major urban transit and commuter railroad programs, and a few operate such systems. Some ate also responsible for a i rportS and water ports. However there has been little i nvolve. ment by SOOTs in comprehensive inter moda l freight planning of the type now envisioned by iS TEA. Even in their h ighway programs, ; DOTs differ from one another SOOTs own and operate from 93 percent to less than lO percent of the highway mileage in their states. Thus the local voice i.n fund ing, building and operating highways ranges from very smaU to very large likewise the relative state and local responsi bilities for transit vary widely. In addition, some SOOTs are more innovative than others. Oregon for exam pie. is frequently cited for its innovative use of performance goals and outcome measurements and its close linkages between transponation and land use planning. Most SOOTs have not prepared statewide intermodal transportation plans. The internal organization of SOOTs varies considerably. Whereas some are organized on the basis of clearly separated modal administrations (such as highways trans i t and airports). others are orga nized into functional units (such as design, construction, :and maintenance) that serve aU the modes tn most SOOTs. some combination of these two approaches is used (4). For example, Maryland hu an lntermodal planning unit and a unified transportation trust fund but separate modal administrations th3t handle design. construction, opera t ion, and maintenance. Few SOOTs were noted for innovative public involvement prog,rart'l$ untillSTEA was enacted. Now several have started interesdng programs of this type includ ing those in Idaho. Iowa, and Oregon The strong suit of SOOTs has been their control of the state highway pro grams, funded strongly by both and federal-aid h i ghway dollars. MPOs Some MPOs have roots that go back to special metropolitan transportation stud ies in the 19S0s sponsored by the state highway organizations. Chicago, Detroit, New York, and Philadelphia are exam ples. Most of these have bec<>me large and mature planning programs that have been replicated i n the nation's other major metropolitan areas. In contrast. 70 new MPOs were ere ated aftet the 1980 census. and 12 more were created4lfter the I990 census These MPOs are mostly small, and many do not have difficult tnnsponation problems. Some of the newest MPOs are still becom TR News 17$, Novembu-Otcember l994 ing acquainted with federal planning requirements. The populations served by MPOs range from more than 10 million to as lit tie as 50,000. Many of the older MPOs have smaller staffs and budgets less f..sh data, and less adequate analytical tools than they did in the 1970s, when other federal planning grant programs from such agencies as the U S Department of Housing and Urban Development and EPA lent strength to their planning programs. Although many of the o l der MPOs were established initially under the wing of a state hlghway department or SOO T most now have a local government-based ln the 1970s 75 percent of MPOs were stafred by metrO polltan regional councils (.3) The c:oun cils are intergovernmental advisory plan ning bodies usually governed by local elected orficials appointed on a onegovernment, onevote basis. These councils generally have thclr own independent staffs and deal with man) p r ogram areas o\her than transportation Many new small MPOs have been cre ated, however, and some o lder MPOs have separated from their regional coun cils. Now only about 44 percent of all MPOs are surfed by regional councils (J). The others are slaffed by indhi.dual cities, coumies, or cit)'county planning commiSsions. or they are freestand i ng entit ies having onl y the responsi bilit i es g iven to them by federal transportation planning laws and regulations The strength of MPOs has been their provision of areaYiide data and analysis for highway and transit systems planning. Most have not been noted for studies of freight or intermodal facilities. their deal making capacity, or their control of trans portation implementation funds. Meeting t he Institutional Challenges of ISTEA SOOTs and MPOs have a long way to go to meet the expectations or lSTE.:-\.. are some of the changes tha t should be considered during the ne:

Reinventing SOOTs To comply with ISTEA, many . SDOT$ may need to be remade in the following ways: I. Sharing power. IS TEA provides sig niJicant new roles [or MPOs, the governor, the state legiSlature, and th federal and state envlronmental regulators SOOTs may not have the last word in many important decisions. These decisions in clu de making cenain funding allocations. determining environmental compliance setting the boundaries of MPOs, coordinating multiple MPOs in a s i ngle area and setting transportation goals in cooperation with many other departments of state government. 2. Prepdr i ng st4ltwidt plans. ISTEA requires long-range state transportation planning ror the first time. It is a demand i ng type of p lan n ing. with 2 3 facto" to be considered and six management systems to be detailed a.s the basis for the short range State transportation improvement prog ram (STIP). 3 Going inrermodal and using flexible fund,s. In most states the separation between transportat ion modes is strong. and intennodal plannin g is not pract iced Even when intermodal plans are devel oped for ISTEA. there may be diff i culties i n implemen ting the plans. For example state transportation revenues genera ll y are eannarked for spend i ng on a single mode. Thus it may be i mpossible to match flexible federal funding without negating ilS flexibility. State laws and con stitutions may have 10 be changed. STfP. When STIPs are prepared and projects are selected for funding within the multiyear STIP. the availability of funds must be: demonstrated This implies that strategic choices will be made in accordance with the goals and priorities set fonh in the statewide p lan. This requ i rement establishes new standards of realism and public ability. The standards will be more difficul t to meet than of the past. when long wish lists of projects were allowed. Setting prioriti es across modes and met ropolitan areas may be difficult unless the statewide plan provides dear just ifica L ions i n terms of expecte:d outcomes. 5. Involving lht public. Something more than a public hearing after the statewide plan has been prepared is clearly expected under ISTEA. SOOTs will need to find ways of providing dteper involvement that begins earlier in the planning process. 6. Reroofing rh< staff. lntcnnod a l and financial planners, public involvement specialists, and other nontraditional per sonnel may need to be added to the sulf. Many SOOTs are experiencing a large number of retirements among engi neers hired 30 to 40 years ago to build the Inte rstate highway system. This may vide an opportunity to change staffing patterns to meet new requirements. Reinventing MPOs To comply with IS TEA. many MPOs may have to be remade in the following ways: I. Exp

agement and fisca l co ntrols for t he oper atln& agenc.y. All tnnsh c-ustop\er s. includin g tta nsh operators ancl manage ment, will be.ne.fit from the i ntegration of GISIAVL nd -timo informtion s ys tems at stations and bus stops and on board 1ransit veh icl es Refer ences 1 All'llr'lGfilnS wbh OiJCLbillfln A ct. U S Public Law 101. lObe Congrus, Washing ton, D.C ., july 1990. 2 S imon, R.M Amer icans whl\ Ols3b\lhiu Act of 1990: Mandate (or Full Acccssib iJity, TR Ntws 168 S.pt ...OCL 1993, p. 17-:U ) and Hron. 81LS Auw&Wficy s,f,t(m$ jM ftr sons with StPLSOI)' CopltiYt Impair m,rnu. Fede:ra1 T f'I.Nit Adm i nisuatio n U S of Tnuupoual ion, Report fTAORll7:1-1 A u g. 1993. -4. 0 Ch\a, A. N and R & Grlbb

This is a blank page


Paper No: 94-0639 THE Fl'A-FHWA MPO REVmWS-PLANNING PRACTICE UNDER 111E ISTEA AND 111E CAAA January 1994 WW!am M. Lyous Operations Research Analyst John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center Researth and Special Programs Adminisuation U.S. Department of Transportation Submintd to tht Trauspo!Utioa Research Board 1994 Annual Meeting


ABSTRACT In rapid succession, the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 and the Intetmodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 have drastically changed how Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) will conduct urban transportation planning. This paper provides insighU into bow MPOs and their planning partners are responding to the challenges and opportunities of these landmark acts. These observations were gained through a series of comprehensive reviews of the planning process in the largest metropOlitan areas being conducted jointly by the Federal Transit Administration (FT A) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), with the assistance of the U.S. Department of Transportation's Volpe Center The reviews evaluate compliance by the MPOs and other transportation planning agencies in each area with FT A and FHW A regulations and policies. As the CAAA and lSTEA guidance has been finalized, the reviews have increasingly focused on responses to the two Acts both on innovations and general problems encountered. This paper analyzes trends identified in the nine reviews completed. Under the two Acts, MPOs are expected to exercise leadership in defining a regional vision for the future, selecting projects, and assuring air quality improvement. To do this, they must overcome a period in which their resources, technical capabilities, and institutional roles diminished. In the areas with severe air pollution, MPOs also must work with other regional agencies to overcome institutional and technical barriers and to identify affordable and political l y supportable combinations of transportation strategies that can Include new automotive and fuel technologies, better management of systems, expanded public transit, pricing, or land use controls that not only meet stringent air quality targets but also improve mobility and accomplish other traditional transportation objectives. In other metropolitan areas, with more mOdest air pollution, many MPOs regard ISTEA as a lever to use in overcoming fragmentation and leading regions toward multi-modal and system-wide planning The reviews have identified several general problems in the planning process that must be overcome if the promise of ISTEA and the CAAA is to be realized. Most long range plans must become more strategic, through framing and evaluating real i stic future alternatives Alternatives must be financially constrained and presented in a way that guides decision makers and the public through the hard choices and trade-offs that are unavoidable if air quality and transportation concems are to be balanced. And long range plans must be clearly linked to annual transportation improvement programs. These programs, which in some regions are consolidations of planning and programming decisions inade outside the MPO-process, must be broadened to demOI\strate how selected projects accomplish regional objectives, and to consider costs and benefi!S of a range of projects.


Lyons Volpe Center/USDOT Page I (The views expressed in this paper are those of the author alone and do not necessarily represent the policies of the Fedenl Transit Administration, Federal Highway Administration, or the U.S. Depanment of Transportation. This paper is based on work performed for the Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and the Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environment and Planning, FHW A. Deborah Bums of the Fedenl Transit Administration, Office of Planning is the Program Manager.) 1. INTRODUCTION In rapid succession, the Clean Air Act Amendments {CAAA} of 1990 and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act {ISTEA) of 1991 have drastically changed how Metropolitan Planning Organizations {MPOs) will conduct urban transportation planning. This paper artcmpts to provide insights into how MPOs are responding to the challenges and opportunities of these landmark acts. These observations are based on a series of comprehensive reviews of the planning process in the largest metropolitan areas being conducted jointly by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Office of Plannina. and Federal Highway Administration {FHWA), Office of Environment and Planning, with the assistance of the U.S. Department of Transportation's Volpe Center. The reviews evaluate compliance by the MPOs and other transportation planning agencies in metropolitan areas with FT A and FHW A regulations and policies. The reviews began with evaluation of how successfully metropolitan areas satisfied the pre-ISTEA federal planning requirements. As the CAAA and ISTEA guidance has been finalized, the reviews have increasingly focused on responses by the largest metropolitan areas to the two Acts both on progress and innovative approaches, and on general problems encountered. The reviews are the basis for formal findings identifying necessary improvements to the planning process in each area issued in reports by the FT A and FHW A Regional Administrators. This paper analyzes some of the major ucnds identified in the reviews completed to date. The paper focuses on five topics related to sound planning under the ISTEA and CAAA, and analyzes practices observed in the nine reviews completed to date. 1. BACKGROUND The independent planning reviews arc being undenalcen jointly by the FHW A and FT A to deter mine how successfully the urban transportation planni'ng process in each metropolitan area addresses broadly defined regional transportation needs. and whether the planning process meets Federal planning requirements. The first three pilot reviews began with site visits, which were conducted just prior to passaae of the ISTEA in December 1991. Under the Federal regulations in place prior to the iSTEA, metropolitan areas were required to apply a continuing, and comprehensive (3-C) transportation planning process. The process lwl to develop plans and programs which address transportation needs, and are consistent with overall planned development in the metropolitan area. The planning process also


Lyons Volpe Center/USDOT Page 2 was to be carried out by the MPOs in cooperation with the state and transit operators. The state and the MPO were required to self-certify that the urban transportation planning process was in conformance with these regulations. Self-certification was intended to increased responsibility for transportation plannin& to slates and MPOs, and was a prerequisite for receiving federal funds for highway and mass transit projec:ts. Aa:ording to the joint planning regulations, self-certification did not relieve FHW A and FT A of oversight responsibilities and the obligation to review and evaluate the planning process. The tiru objective of the independent planning reviews was to allow FHW A and FT A to fulfill these responsibilities to evaluate the planning process and the credibility of the self-certification. The ISTEA, amended 23 U.S.C. and the FedC1111 Transit Act, mandated fundamental changes to the metropolilan planning process. As explained in the March 2, 1993 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for "Metropolitan Planning, significant changes require that: the long range plan inc:lude environmental and intermodal comiderations, and provide a financially constrained 20-year vision of future transportation improvements; transpOrtation improvement programs (TIPs) function as strategic management tools to aceomplish the objec:tives of the plan. TIPs are to be prioritiz.ed, financially constrained, and subjec:ted to air quality conformity requirements in nonattainment areas; planning emphasize the efficiency and performance of the overall system; and develop str.ltegies that consider the broad range of possible modes and their connectivity, and IS diverse and comprehensive factors, including congestion management str.ltegies, tr.lvel demand reduction, land use effects, and expansion of transit. The transition between preand post-ISTEA periods was .smooth for the independent planning reviews. The reviews began with a broad interprelation of the joint planning regulations, expanding from a foundation of the 3-C process, to consider "good planning practice." From their beginning, the reviews focused on three things: the extent to which working relationships between MPOs and their planning partners were clearly defined and cooperative; technical capabilities for transportation and air quality modeling; and the effec:tiveness of public participation. This foeus anticipated many of the planning considerations and requirements in the ISTEA. As the transportation planning requirements of the CAAA and ISTEA have evolved, the reviews have increasingly emphasiz.ed sec:ond and third objectives. Second, the reviews allow FHW A and FTA to assess the ability of the metropolilan planning processes to address the evolving requirements of the CAAA and ISTEA. And lhWI. the reviews assist metropolilan areas to prepare for future federal certifications of the planning process, as required by ISTEA for metropolilan areas over 200,000 population. Areas that fail to receive certification will be sanctioned by having federal funds withheld. under circumSLances discussed in the Final Rule.


Lyons Volpe Center/USDOT Page3 The planning reviews involve a federal team from FHW A Headquarters, Regional, and Division offices; FI'A Headquarters and Regional offices; and the Volpe Center of the U.S. Department of Transportation. During site visits, the team meets with representatives of all agencies involved in regionally significant tnnsportation planning in each area, including MPOs, state Departments of Transportation, state and regional air quality agencies, public tnnSit operators, and county or city planning departments. The reviews are based on an open-ended exchange of information, built around a structured and disciplined framework. The comprehensive and multi-modal approach fosters an understanding of the local planning context and encourages the systematic view envisioned by the ISTEA. For each area, federal staff gain appreciation for the unique planning environment and identify the strengths and wealalesses of the planning process and baniers that must be overcome to meet the ISTEA requirements. The MPO and other planning agencies receive a clearer sense of changes required to meet ISTEA expectations. Both federal and local panicipants benefit from the opportunity to take a comprehensive v i ew of the metropolitan transportation system, and to discuss concerns, problems, and solutions. Candor is encouraged because the assessments are not certification reviews. And because each area s planrting process is undergoing a period of transition and uncertainty, federal and regional staff approach the reviews with great interest and intensity. By consensus, each team has developed extensive and specific findings on necessary improvements, presented in a formal report issued by the FI' A and FHW A Regional Administrators. The fouab objectjye of the planning reviews is to identify and analyze national trends in metropolitan planning under the CAAA and lSTEA. This paper represents the initial effort to perform cross-cutting analysis by synthesizing findings from the reviews completed to date, summarized in Table I. Tablt ) lndtptndent Planning Kansas City Chicago Los Angeles Pittsburgh Houston Twin Cities Portland Sacramento Denver pate of Site Yiit 1991 1991 1991 1991 1992 1992 1992 1993 1993


Lyons Volpe Center/USDOT Page4 3. SUMMARY" OF MAJOR FINDINGS This paper provide$ insights into current planning practices and the gap between this status quo and important expec:Wions of the ISTEA and CAAA. The analysis focuses on five important aspects of metropolitan tr.lnsportation planning, contt2Sting what the federal team looked for in good planning practice as defined by the joint planning requirements, and later by the two Acts, to wbat it found in practice. The status quo and the expected characteristics of the planning process under the ISTEA and CAM can be considered as two ends of a spectrum. Fieun: I describes a spectrum of planning practice in the five areas considered In this paper. At one end, the status quo is based on generali2ed problems common to many but not necessarily all of the areas evaluated. At the other end are the ISTEA and CAAA goals or expectations for transportation planning. The difficulty is that because both ends of the spectrum are in great flux, attempts at definition are analogous to shooting at two rapidly moving targets. The planning process is changing in all of the metropolitan areas evaluated, primarily in response to the two Acts. Work on some of the reviews began prior to passage of the ISTEA, and some mandated changes will not have to be in place until future years. As a result, planning proces ses were being evaluated against standards that were not completely formalized at the time of the reviews. The intent of the reviews was to provide constructive guidance on how to modify current practices to meet standards not yet finalized. This analysis concentrates on trends rather than on observed practices, many of which have already been modified. The planning practices of individual metropolitan areas should actually be placed somewhere between the two ends of the spectrum. Although practices in most areas are moving toward the right end of the spectrum, the speed of movement will be of major concern. Figure 1 Spectrum or Planniq Practice Aspect Status Quo ISTEAJCAAA Goals I. O.....U MPOrole Rce>ved from 1n1jor dooi11oas Broker, leode<, oooseaNI builder. 2. Lo ........ ploD Sinal scaw>o. Alterua&ive scawios. FOC\IJ on I or 2 IDOdcs. MullimodaliDCI illlermodal. FOC\IJ oa 1)'110<11 perfotmaDce. Incorporates IS foc:oors. 3. LiDks betlo-PlOD N01 elouly aublillled. Clearly -'>liJilecl. ODd TIP TIP otrsiCaic manaaemen 1001. 4. Fi scally toDScrailled PIODtrlP No. Yea. s. Public role Participation Limiled-c.a .. h..,,, oa dnf\ Actively eacouraaed. Pl&a!T1P. Early and substantive. Rep,...,wion l.imiled. Brotd .. public.lprivate soc:tor. ciizeos.


Lyons Volpe Centcr/USDOT PageS 3.1 MPO Roles ud Responsibilities Expectations The federal &eam looked for collaborative and well-coordinated working relationships between lhe MPO and otltcr agencies involved in regionally significant transportation planning in each mettopolitan area. In moSI cases Ibis includes city or county planning groups, state DOTs, transit operators, or olher MPOs serving lhe same area. ln air quality nonattainment areas, state or regional air quality management agencies often play major roles in transportation planning. Beyond collaborative working relationships, lhe ISTEA and CAAA clearly expect lhe MPO to play a pivotal role in mettopolitan planning, whelher as a leader, manager, or builder of consensus among other agencies !hat can have different perspectives and priorities. The planning process should be a disciplined and structured effort lhat is lhe basis for programming of investments, and not a paper exercise to meet Federal requ i rements, largely disconnected from important transportation decisions The CAAA and ISTEA leave many of lhe details of lhe working relationships between lhe MPO and lhe olher agencies to local negotiation. The Acts, however, mandate significant responsibilities for MPOs, includ i ng: air quality conformity determinations for lhe plan and lhe TIP; development of a multi-modal and financially constrained plan, wilh a realistic long range vision; working cooperatively wilh lhe slate and transit operators to develop a financially constrained and prioritized TIP; and selection of all projects for lhe TIP (except for National Highway System, bridge. interstate maintenance and Federal Land Highway programs), in consultation wilh lhe Slate and transit operators in areas wilh a population of over 200,000. Obsemtions The MPOs in lhe Twin Cities and Ponland clearly play roles as consensus builders and succ:essfully coordinate planninc processes !hat influence lhe long tenn direction of !heir areas, and guide lhe programming of transportation investments. Bolh MPOs appear to be in strong positions to modify \heir planning processes to meet lhe requirements of lhe ISTEA and CAAA. It is important to noce !hat bolh of lhese MPOs have broad powers under state statutes lhat predate ISTEA, and have a history of regional leadership. In lhe Twin Cities, Metro Council is aulhorizcd by state statute to prepare and adopt a comprehensive development guide consisting of polity slatements, goals, standards, programs and maps prescribing lhe orderly economic deve l opment of lhe meaopolitan area. The guide includes direction for land use, parks and open space, airportS, highways, transit services, and many public buildings. A Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) manages lhe 3-C process and functions as a forum for cooperative decisionmaking by local elected officials, citizens and major transportation agencies. The TAB assigns funding priorit ies and adopts programs, which can be approved or disapproved by lhe Council. 51


Lyons Volpe Center/USDOT Page 6 The Twin Cities' lon& range transponation plan anticipated important emphases of the ISTEA. The plan was oriented toward maintenance o f the region's existing transportation system and achievement of system efficiencies by malcin& greater use of under-used facilities. The Portland MPO, Metro conducts its transportation planning process primarily through the Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation (JPACT). JPACT broad l y represents the metropolitan area and is charged with coordinating development of plans defining required regional transportation improvements, forming a consensus of governments on prioritization of improvements, and promoting implementation of identified priorities. The Denver MPO, the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) has recently had its role revised in response to ISTEA. It has the sol e responsibility for project selection, and all projects must be included in the long range transportation plan. The MPO is leading a process to revise the long range plan in response to changing economic conditions and the new requirements of the ISTEA. In some other areas evaluated, significant aspects of transportation planning occurred outside the MPO-led process. Important metropolitan planning and investment programming decisions appeared to be determined primarily by or transit operators, which discouraaed consideration of the extent to which these investments accomplished area-wide objectives, as defined in a long range plan. Major resource allocation decisions for planning, capital, and operating funds were not based on a "top-down" long range planning process led by the MPO. The long-range regional transit planning efforts dealt with many of the agency level decisions as "predetermined, rather than as subject to influence through long-range p l anning. Although rigorous planning often occurred at sub-regional levels, the perspective and priorities of these agencies were often different from those of the overall region. For example, transit operators may use long range planning to ma.ke program decisions, but out of necessity their major concerns may be operational and financial to meet farebox recovery requ i rements reduce deficits, or eliminate inefficient service. For uansit operators, these concerns can take precedence over broader regional priorities, for example, assigning resources to the projects that most cost-effectively reduce air pollution, regardless of whether projects are !fansit, highway, or transponation control measures. In one example, a transit operator's plans resulted i n construction of a reserved busway w i thout substantial consideration of the feasibility of including other high occupancy vehicles, which might have reduced bus speeds and efficiency, but also could produce system-wide mobility or air poll u tion benefits. In another case, suballocations were based on historical formulas and nOt on long range planning, which is specifically discouraged by the ISTEA Final Rule. In many areas evaluated, the MPO received a prioritized and financially constrained list of projects for the TIP from implementing and other participating agencies, including the state, uansit operators, and in the case of the California areas, from county transportation commissions. For California MPOs, this is encouraged by state planning requ i rements that define similar responsibi li ties for county commissions to those defined for MPOs by the ISTEA.


Lyons -Volpe Centcr/USDOT Page 7 This general approach, where the MPOs receive inputs for the TIP that are prioritized and financially consttained outside the overall planning process, is inconsistent with the ISTEA, which requires development of prioritized and financially constrained area-wide long range plans and prognms. At its worst, some MPO processes are reduced to combining rather than integrating program documents to reflect system-wide objectives. This reduces the likelihood that transportation resources will be allocated based on area-wide priorities, including improved air quality and system-wide efficiency. Although early efforts led by MPOs to develop criteria for allocating the ISTEA flexible funds were modest, there was some positive movement in this direction. In the Twin Cities, Metro Council has formed an ISTEA Work Group to identify ISTEA responsibilities and priorities; reach agreement on organizational roles; and detennine procedures for distributing the flexible funds in the ISTEA programs. The Work Group proposed roles and responsibilities for the Minnesota DOT (Mn/001') to play in the allocation of flexible funds, and a two year timetable for making decisions, completing planning tasks, and satisfying mandates related to the ISTEA. The Work Group was developing formal criteria to use in evaluation and selection of projects in competitions for the flexible funds, including consideration of population, vehicle or lane miles, or gas tax revenue generation as the basis for allocation of Surface Transportation Pro&rarn (STP) funds by the Slate to rqions. The Work Group took a strong position apinst formula-based suballocation of flexible funds within the region to jurisdictions or to modes. In Sacramento, the MPO bad developed flexible STP guidelines which will allow selection of projects that meet the travel demand needs iC!entified during the planning process. The STP guidelines were developed through a comminee structure which includes all modes and transportation interests in the region. The guidelines were evaluated by approximately 100 different agencies and jurisdictions. At the time of the review, the MPO was developing criteria which would allow direct comparisons between highway and transit projects. The Sacramento region was well-positioned to realize the potential of the flexible funding feature due to its transit, congestion and air quality management planning. Flexible funds could be used to fund projects proposed by the County Con&estion Management Agencies or by the transit operator to expand the light rail system. The MPO also had a project selection process for the TIP which will ease fund transfen to finance a rilnge of transportation projects based on projections of revenues, need, readiness and eligibility. 3.2 Development or Scenarios In Long Ran&e Plans Expectations The federal team looked for long range plans that perform a strategic function for the overall planning process. The plan should identify the key issues that will effect the region over the next twenty yean, including demographics. availability of resources, and the condition of transportation infra.struc:ture: While tlle plan can encourage innovative thinking on future directions, it should also move the area toward a realistic single future vision by consensus of 53


Lyons Volpe Center/USDOT Page 8 decision-makers illd the broad public. The future will ultimately be defined in terms of a prefemd transportation alternative, based on a disciplined look at the reality each area faces financial limitations, air quality targets, and other local goals. The analysis that s u ppons the selected alternative should be clear. Preferably, the plan will defi n e and evaluate several distinct al!ematives in terms of broad costs and benefits, and the ability to accomplish clearly staled area-wide goals. Identification and evaluation of alternative scenarios in the long 11111ge plan are important means of demonstrating the complex ttade-offs involved when limited resources are applied to air quality, mobility, and other fundamental transportation concerns. A clear picture of the costs and benefits of alternatives is necessary to focus decision-makers and the public on the difficult choices facing metropolitan areas, particularly those in severe air quality nonattainment categories. The plan should not be static, out-of-date, or an advocacy document, but should represent current critical thinking on how best to deal with future challenges. The plan should not be a means to justify a previously sdected set of projects in the TIP; instead, the TIP should be a carefully selected and prioritized set of projects to implement lQng term directions from the plan. The plan should be a cohesive and distinct product that will provide a single source of direction for the area; it should not be a mechanical merger or consolidation of sub-regional or single mode plans, although these efforts should be consistent and compatible with the long 11111ge plan, and will be important resources in its development. The ISTEA requires consideration of multi-modal solutions to the area's most pressing future transportation problems, and explicit consideration of IS factors throughout the planning process, and in the products of the process, including the long 11111ge plan and the TIP The IS factors include congestion management strategies, travel demand reduction, land use effects, expansion of transit, and improved transit security. The team looked for serious consideration of a broad 11111ge of stntegies in the plan. If the selected alternative did not reflect broad stntegi es, the p l an should indicate that these strategies were considered and rejected in terms of their ability to accomplish regional objectives. The team looked for breadth of approach to long 11111ge planning that indicated the ability to adapt to the ISTEA requirements. Observations The plan developed by SCACi. the MPO for the Los Angeles metropolitan area, provided an excellent example of a how a set of clear alternatives can be presented in terms of costs and benefits, includin& reduction of vehicle miles travelled and air pollution. This approach can encourqe understanding of the unavoidable trade-offs between stntegics to meet air quality, mobility and other targets. For Los Anceles, the only metropolitan area in the extreme nonanainment class for ozone. evaluation and selection of cost-effective strategies to reach attainment should dominate the planning process The scenarios developed by SCACi encouraced decision-malce..S to focus on what results will be requ i red from specific strategies, including s i gnificant growth in ll1111sit, reduced trips through telecommuting, and improved jobs-


Lyons Volpe Center!USDOT Page 9 housing balance 10 meet extremely demanding air quality and other objectives. Rejection or reduction of one strategy can then be analyzed in terms of additional burden placed on the other strategies The Sacramento plan presented five different mobility options to guide the region through the year 2010. The building block approach used to develop these options consisted of adding or combining: transit expansion; development of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes; roadway improvements (based on 2010 congestion projections); changes in land use; and transportation congestion management After evaluation of the different options using performance criteria, the MPO staff concluded that the mobility option that combined the different clements perfonned the best. A basic option was then presented and evaluated, and additional options were created by adding one or more actions. By describing the ramifications of incremental actions, this approach successfully demonstrated the thinking behind the selected alternative. Both the Portland and Twin Cities plans presented a multi-modal for the area, with complete descriptions of the transponalion projects chosen for eventual implementation. However, neither provided a thorough description of the process that created the vision or the range of investment alternatives that were considered in the plannina process. The emphasis was on moving ahead with proaramming, rather than on demonstrating the analysis that led to the selected long tenn alternative. In Chicago, the 1989 lona ranae plan adopted by the MPO identified the choices that must be made berween travel modes such as automobiles and transit, and berwccn different transit providers competing for limited resources. Rather than presenting and contrasting multiple scenarios, the plan proposed needed major facilities, such as highways and rail lines, and estimated the resulting financial needs through 2010. The Kansas City plan did not propose alternative land use and transportation scenarios. Instead, the plan presented a single future scenario (with separate highway and transit components) based upon the extrapolation of historical development trends. The plan revision was expected to take a broader look a1 approaches to land use. The plan for Houston included different transportation options, but rwo of the options focused on roadway improvements with minimal consideration of transit or other measures the region might consider to comply with the CAAA and ISTEA. Denver is revisina its long ranae plan in accordance with 1STEA. The revised plan will be fiscally consuained and will be based on changed demographic and economic assumptions. This revision is being done both in response to ISTEA and because of changing economic conditions 55


Lyons Volpe Center/USDOT Page 10 3.3 Clear Llnkales Between The Long Range Plan and tbe TiP Expectations The fedenl teams looked for clear and substantial connections between the strategic direction set in the plan and the short tmn actions in the TIP. A connection between an unconstrained or "wish list plan, and a TIP that is primarily a list of projects without explicit criteria for selection, is inadequate. Transportation projects should be selected based on cost and performance their ability to accomplish the objectives of the plan. These genenl expectations for the reviews anticipated the requirement in the ISTEA Interim Guidance and Rule for consistency between the plan and the TIP, and related discussion in the Metropolitan Planning Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The NPRM proposed that the plan be "the centnl mechiilism for structuring effective investments. Also, "The financial constraint of the plan would be reflected in more detailed fashion in the TIP. The TIP must become a management tool, establishing an overall program strategy reflecting the transportation plan. Obscmtions The Twin Cities and Portland metropolitan areas provided clear demonsttation of the links between plans and TIPs. However, as noted above, plans for both areas began with a single selected alternative. By providing a more developed strategic context for the selected alternative, future plans in both areas could provide more substantial justification for the TIPs. The Twin Cities Metro Council successfully documented the regional planning context for the TIP's development, and the issues and policies that affected project selection. The Council initiated the TIP process by requesting Mn/DOT and Regional Transit Board (RTB) to $Ubmit projects for evaluation by the Technical Advisory Board and the MPO. The process ensured that the TIP reflects the region's priorities as expressed not only in the long range transportation and air quality control plans, but also in long range plans of the RTB and Mn/DOT, and in local comprehensive plans for land use and transportation. The Portland area TIP began with an explanation of how the capital improvement component of the plan will be implemented, deseribed which projects will be given priority, and balanced local and regional needs. According to the MPO, baseline consistency of the TIP with the RTP was established in updates of the regional transportation model Proposed elements of the plan are added to the model to simulate expected future transportation system performance TIP projects were compared to this projection to determine consistency. As the regional system of project selec:tion is modified to en$Ure compliance with multi-modal and efficiency criteria of the ISTEA, the MPO will require that local and special disuict projects include a statement of consistency with the RTP


Lyons Volpe Center/USDOT Page II In the l.Ds Angeles area, the TIP reflected the separately determined shon-rang e plans of the reaion's tnnsit providers, the county commi ssions, and Caltnns. Limited links to the reaional mobility plan and its goals were developed. In another area, the MPO had the authority to approve and disapprove TIP projects proposcci by implementina aaencles, but this authority appeared to be exen:ised primarily when projects exceeded fundin& conslnints. Thus, impl ementors were not forced to view how their projects fit into the overall reJional "big picture. Project ranldngs and selection were primarily determined by the implementors. The clocumentalioo of the plannina basis for many of the projects in the Kansas City TIP was not strongly developed. Links between TIP projects and the long and shon-range clements of the plan, or connection to expl icit rqional objectives for energy conservation and improved air quality were not c:learly documented '. One area did not c:learly establish a regional planning process as the guiding mechanism for selecting the projects in i ts TIP. Lon a term rqional criteria and objectives identified by the MPO did not necessarily determine the contents of the TIP. Projects were included based on nqoliations between elected officials and implementing modes. For example, the swe oor and the toll road authority appc:an:d to make highway fund c!ccisions and tnnsit operators appc:an:d to make tnnsit fund decisions based primarily on their own criteria and objectiv es. The MPO incorporated these priorities into the TIP. The MPO in Denver has revised its TIP selection process to fully comply with ISTEA. Proposals are submitted to the MPO for review. Proposals must have been included in the long range plan to be considered. The MPO uses criteria based on ISTEA in evaluating projects and all projects in the TIP are fully funded. The TIP covering 1993 to 199S was developed using this process. 3.4 Loq Raqe Plans aDd Must bt flnaac.ially Constrailled Expectations The plan should not be a "wisll l ist with unf unded projects. An unconstrained plan avoids controversy by including projects from all constituents, but lacks the discipline necessary to guide a meuopolitan area toward pi'OJrammina sc:aru resources to solve combina tions of air quality, mobility, growth or other pressina problems. Although the plan must be constrained and should develop realistic alternatives, it can also provide value by developing unconstrained alternatives as a means to advocate imaginative and challenging future visions of uansponation systems for the metrOpolitan area. Jr alternatives are presented that are beyond the means of currently identifiable resources, projects can be prioritized to clarify what would be funded if different levels of new revenues are available '\7


Lyons Volpe Center/USDOT Page 12 The ISTE.A that plans be financial l y constrained over a 20 year time horizon comparing existing and proposed revenues 10 costs of consuucting and operating the p l anned system. TIPs and plans must be financially constrained and prioritized; over-programming is not allowed. For nonanainment amu, financial constraint is the key l ink between the CAAA and ISTEA, w ith for conformity reviews of both the plan and TIP by the MPO, FTA and FHWA. Observations Typically, the MPOs evaluated did not reflect financial constraints and prioritizatio n in their plans or TIPs. Most of the MPOs, however indicated that in response to the ISTEA they expected 10 incorporate these difficult but crucial dimensions i n their next plans and TIPs At an aggregate level the Los A n geles p l an identified shonfalls, although the p lan and its long range projects were not resource constrained Ii assumed that the resources required would be provided by the political process to reach specified goals The 1992 u pdate was intended to develop more stringent funding criteria and to apply them to general initiatives. This will be i mponant to determine conformity with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and to meet other ISTEA The Los Angeles MPO assessed TIPs prepared by Caltrans, counties, and transit agencies, which were prioritized for consistency w ith the mobility plan, for conformity with transportation control measures in the SIP, and to assure priority of HOY over mixed flow l anes. C ounty TIPs must be constrained by the funds available. The transit agencies consistently faced funding shortfalls for TIP implementation. Chicago's l ong range transportation plan proposed maintenance and expansion that will cost S25 billion through 2010, but itS optimistic funding availability forecast fell shon of providing required revenues, and its pessimistic forecast fell very shon. Shortfalls could be substantial enough to require reconsideration of basic transpOrtation and l and use strategies. The first step in creation of the TIP which was fiscally constrained. was adoption by the MPO of fiscal marks for the federal portion of the program These marks guided the development of lists of pro j ects by implementing agencies, as discussed above. The TIPs for the Pittsburah and HouSton amu were over-programmed. The Pittsburgh TIP had a substantial funding shortfall, particularly for the transit portion, which was not prioritized The Houston MPO estimated that the TIP was approximately SO percent over-programmed, and in the 1992 fiscal year less than half of the programmed projects were implemented. Despite an explicit priority for ftScal restraint in the Twin Cities, the proposed level of highwa1 and transit activity in the plan appeared to be highly optimistic. Metro Council estimated a shonfall as high as $2.1 billion by 2010 for metropolitan highway system improvements. reflecting projection of a significant reduction in state transportation expenditures. To suppon transit operating costs and construction of three l ight rail lines, an additional approximately S 1 3 billion was required for the planning period.


Lyons Volpe Centc:r/USDOT Paae 13 The Twin Cities plan auempted 10 preserve the existing level of regional mobility through the year 2010 while minimizing expenditures. Metro Council recognized national and local economic: and financial pressures, and auempted 10 balance mobility and maintenance of quality oflife with limited long tenn funding. The Council's Me!rgpOijtan Development and Investment framework emphasized careful management of regional by plal:ing the highest investment priority on servicing existing development within the urban service area. Portland's ambitious ten and twenty year scenarios described in the plan were not prioritized or financially constrained, and faced large funding shortfalls. The MPO, however, had developed an aggressive strategy for creating new funding sources. The Portland TIP was not over-programmed; funds had been obligated for the projec:ts listed During its development, the proposed program in the current TIP was determined 10 cost more than available funding allows. The MPO worked with The Oregon Depanment of Transponation (ODOT) to equalize costs and funding. Projects dropped from the TIP due 10 insufficient funds were maintained in the plan for later consideration. The Sacramento plan was sienific:antly under-funded. Even though different options for financing the shonfall were explored in the plan, the region was struggling to identify new revenue sources that would be publicly and politi<:ally acceptable. The Jack of a financially constrained plan, as required by the ISTEA, was an issue between the MPO and the U.S. DOT. Denver's long range plan included more than $11 billion in ttansponation investment, although revenue estimates projected that only $4 billion will be available in 2010. The MPO is studying new sources of revenue and planned to develop a financially constrained 2015 long range plan based on the 2010 plan, 10 meet tile: ISTEA deadline. The MPO also intended 10 produce a 2020 plan that will respond 10 other ISTEA requirements. 3.5 Public Participatioa E.xpectatigns The teams looked for demonstration of substantial public participation, with "public" broadly defined 10 include a range of public aseneies, citizens and advocacy groups, and the private sector. A public participation process that relies primarily on formal public hearings to assess dra!u of plans, TIPs, or ot11c:r plannin& products was considered inadequate. The preferred approach -which encourages early involvement in identifying long-and shon range strategies, in the 3-C process down 10 the corridor or project level, and in programming is an ideal that is difficult 10 accomplish. The public is likely 10 react to decisions that seem 10 directly affect them, but 10 have difficulty investing the time necessary 10 become involved in the complexities of long-ranee planninc. Ideally, plannins staff will assist the public to participate throughout the techni<:al planning process. Broad public involvement is crucial 10 building the political consensus necessary to suppOn controvenial transponation decisions, including those required for severe nonattainment areas to meet air quality goals.


Lyons Volpe Center/USDOT Page 14 The ISTEA Rule requires a proactive public involvement proc:ess, including access to complete technical and policy infonnation, timely notices, full access to key decisions, and suppon for early and continuing involvement in plan and TIP development. Obseryations For several of the areas, public participation could be more fonnally expanded to improve representation throughout the planning process of groups suc:1t as large employers; labor, employer, and development associations; environmental organizations; and minority groups. In Los Angeles, SCAG had a Regional Advisory Council of SO members drawn from business, church groups, and universities to make recommendations to the Executive Committee on proposed plans. A deliberate attempt was made to get the private sector, minority groups, women, and the disadvantaged involved on this committee. Also, opinion surveys and public hearings were used to sample citizen opinion. All area studies had a policy advisory committee Jt:. on which private citizens sat. SCAG did feel that additional effons were required to evaluate the impact of transponation planning on the citizenry at tarae. The county transponation commissions and transit operators maintained their own outreach programs. For the Chic:aao area, the major source of citizen input to the CATS transponation planning process, including development of the long-range plan and TIP, was indirect, through the local elected officials who serve on the Policy Committee. Public concerns, including requests for infonnation and comments on plans, were primarily communicated through the Council of Mayors and regional councils to CATS. The Council of Mayors provided a forum for disseminating information and solicited comments on regional transponation plans and programs. In addition, the CATS Policy Committee representatives met with individual citizens and groups at the regional councils, and the transit agencies often presented projects and programs to the councils for review. In Kansas City, the MPO primarily relied on public meetings for input in the preparation of the plan. During the controversial investigation of transponation and land usc options within the urban core, the MPO held twelve public meetings. The Houston MPO provided an effective means. through membership on for citizens, representatives of environmental action groups, and private transit operators to participate in the planning proc:ess. The Twin Cities has a strong tradition of citizen participation, encouraged by controversies over highway construction, the transfer of interstate highway funds, airpon noise, large scale real estate developments, and proposed light rail constniCtion. This tradition was enhanced by the Metro Council, the RTB and Mn/DOT's commitments to actively recruiting citizens for their advisory committees. To involve the general public in the planning, development and implementation of regionai plans and policies, Metro Council and the RTB had an "open appointment policy and a program to actively recruit citizens to sit on advisory committees.


Lyons Volpe Center!USDOT Page 15 Public participalian in Ponland occurred through citizens advisory committees for all corridor SNdies, public meetings to update the plan process, and citizen membership on the Transportation Policy Alcematives Committee (TPAC). Metro appointed six citizens as TPAC representatives. According to Meuo, the general public was 110( easily attracted to planning activities, and citizen input came late in the process to update the last p l an, despite TPAC's inclusive membership. Metro expected involvement to increase the next two years through the Region 2040 process, during which public forums and publications will encourage participation in devclopina a vision for the Ponland region. The seventeen members of the Meuo Joint Policy Advisory Committee on Transportation included representatives from the counties, the city of Portland, Metro Council, the Washington portion of the region, the regional transit open!Or, the Port of Portland, ODOT, and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. After passage of lhe ISTEA, the Sacramento MPO took steps to enhance citizen participation in the planning process. This consisted of fonnation of lhree different sub-regional groups to represent local concerns, which report to lhe MPO's Air Quality and Transportation Committee. The MPO also formed a task force to address bikeway and pedestrian issues and an ad hoc environmental group. The Denver MPO provides a variety of opportunities for citizen participation. Plans TIPs, and other plannina products are presented befori: public meetings and hearings Citizens are represented on task forces established to address regional planning issues. The private sector is represented on task forces and involved in public meetlngs and public hearings. The MPO makes an effort to include private representatives on the Transportation Planning Committee and to expand public participation opportunities for both citizens and the private sector. 6 1


Lyons Volpe Center/USDOT 4. CONCLtlSiON Page 16 MPOs are now expected to exercise leadership in defining a regional vision for the future, in selectin& projects, and in improving mobility and air quality. To do this, they must overcome a period in which their resources, teChnical capabilities, and institutional roles were diminished. In the mellopolitan areas with severe air pollution, MPOs also must overcome institutional and teChnical barriers and work with other regional agencies to identify affordable and politically supponable mixes of tnnsponation that can intlude new automotive and fuel teehnolo&ies, better management of systems, expanded public transit, pricing, or land usc controls that not only meet stringent air quality tar&ets but also improve mobility and ac.:omplish other traditional transponation objectives. In other metropolitan areas with more modest air pollution, some MPOs welcome the ISTEA as a lever to usc in overcoming fragmentation and leadin& rezions toward multi-modal and system-wide ptanninc. The reviews have identified several ceneral problems in the planning process that must be overcome if the promise of the ISTEA and CAAA is to be realized. Most tong-ranee plans must beCome more strategic, through framing and evaluating realistic future alternatives. Alternatives must be financially constrained and presented in a way that guides decision-makers and the public through the teChnical and political trade-offs and hard choices that are unavoidable if air quality and transponation conc:erns are to be balanced. And tong-range plans must be clearly linked to annual transponation improvement programs. These programs, which in some regions are consolidations of planninc and prosramming decisions made outside the MPO-process, must be broadened to demonstrate how the projects selected accomplish regional objectives, and to consider costs and benefits of a range of projects Substantial consideration should be demonstrated not only of transit and highway projects, but also of other initiatives that respond to the fi !teen ISTEA factors.


Lyons Volpe Cen!.CJ'IUSDOT ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Page 17 The author acknowledges the. insights and comments of the federal review team members who participated in the nine independent planning reviews conducted to dale. In particular, he acknowledges the contributions of Deborah Bums, the Program Manager, Samuel Zimmerman, and Robert Kirkland of the Ff A Office of Planning; Brian Stennan of the Ff A Region n Office; Barna Juhasz and Dean Smeins of the FHW A MetropOlitan Planning Division; and Michael Jacobs, Paul Shadle, Terrence Smith, Beth Deysher, and Robert Brodesky of the Volpe Center. REFERENCES I. Lyons, W., et a!, Reviews of the Tnnsponation Planninc Prpceu in the Kansa City, Chicaeo, Southern Ca!jfomja, Pinsbumh. Houston. and Twin Cities MeiiOJ!Oiitan Areas. Volpe National Transportation Systems Cen!.CJ', RSPA, U.S. Depanment ofTransportation, RSPAIVNTSC-SS-TM392.01 to -06, 1991-1993. . Review of tbe Transportation PlanDiDII: Prpcess jn the Poaland. Sacramento, and Denyc:r MeltQllC!Iitan Areas, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, RSPA, U.S. Department of Transportation, RSPAIVNISC-SS-IM392.07 to -09, Draft reports to be published in 1994. 2. "Interim Guidance on the ISTEA Metropolitan Planning Requirements, FT A and FHW A, April 6, 1992. 3. Federal Rqister, 23 CFR Pan 450 and 49 CFR Pan 613, "Metropolitan Planning," "Statewide Transportation Planning, and "Management and Monitoring Systems, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, March 2. 1993. 4. Federal Rqister, 23 CFR Parts 450 and 49 CFR Pan 613, "Statewide Planning; MetropOlitan Planning, Final Rule, October 28, 1993. S. Federal Realster 23 CFR Pans 500 and 626 and 49 CFR Pan 614, "Management and Monitoring Systems, Interim Final Rule. December I, 1993. 6. Federal Reaister, 40 CFR Parts S 1 and 93, Air Quality: Transportation Plans, Programs, and Projects; Federal or State Implementation Plan Conformity, Final Rule, November 24, 1993.


This is a blank page


REVIEW OF THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS IN THE HOUSTON METROPOLITAN AREA JULY1993 prepared for: U.S. Depaztment of'l'raDaportation Feder81 'lftDiit A.dmiDiatration Ofl!ce ofPJanninl and Fedaral Hichway A.dmiDiatration omce ofEnVUO!IIIWlt and Plnninr by: U.S. Deputment of'l'iansportation Reeem:b and Speejl Proarama .AdmiDiat:ration John A. Volpe National Systems Center Cambriclp, 1'tlA 02142 6


Ill. Omnizatjon and Management or t!Je PlaMing Proc:ess A. Metropolitan Planning Organization Designation H-GAC is a voluntary coalition of governments from the thineen counties that comprise the Gulf State Planning Region. Policy and management direction for H-GAC is governed by a Board of Directors which includes representatives from the local governments (counties and municipal i ties) and constitutes the planning region. Membershi p is not extended to the state or regional agencies, such as TxDOT or METRO. which have actual authority to implement transportation improvements. The organization provides planning and technical suppon to its members. and acts as a forum for transponation, water quality, housing, aging and regional growth. and development issues. In April of 1974, the Governor of Texas designated. H-GAC as the MPO for an eight county urbanized area which includes Houston. Galveston. Texas City and La Marque. (These counties also constitute the air quality nonattainment area.) H-OAC was redesignated as the MPO for the urbanized area by the Governor in May. 1988. According to the terms of the agreement. H-GAC will continue as the MPO until such time as the Governor should require redesignation. The MPO is the H-GAC Board: however. the Transponation Planning Committee (TPC) recommends the policy direction and manages the 3-C planning process. H-GAC's documents do not clearly define the official roles of these bodies. They leave the impression that the TPC, rather than the Board. has fmal authority for the 3-C planning process. and for actions such as self-ceniflcation, and fmal approval and adoption of the regional transponation plan. The TPC. with the suppon of HGAC's technical staff. is expected to carry out the following: . Guide multi-modal transponation planning conducted by H-GAC. TxDOT. METRO. city and county governments, and other political subdivisions of the State of Texas; Provide a public forum for discussion of issues relating to region-wide transponation planning; and Advise the H-GAC Board of Directors on transponation programs and issues and recommend the adoption of the UPWP. TIP and the regional transponation plan. Currently, the majority of the active TPC attendees include city and county engineers and planning staff for the eight county area, and representatives from METRO and TxDOT. H-GAC is i nterested in modifying the committee's representation to increase local elected official panicipation and heighten awareness of transponation issues affecting goods movement The re constitution of this group would align it with its original purpose. According to H-GAC staff. it would be a forum capable of debating technical as well as political merits of alternative transponation strategies and building consensus regarding the region's vision for future growth


and development. Given the ongoing activities of the Greater Houston Chamber of Commerce s Regional Mobility Committee to create a regional transportation vision and the influence of the Supergroup regarding the region's commitment to significant transportation projects, this move would strengthen the 3-C planning process. In addition. the push for policy review at the TPC level is essential given recent developments brought about by ISTEA and the CAAA They r equire the MPO to have a major role in setting the direction and ensuring the implementation of transportation system management ("ISM) actions and transportation control measures (TCMs) (Since the review. the MPO has modified the role and responsibility of the TPC and secured greater participation from elected officials. Also. the TPC created a Technical Advi sory Committee (T AC) Jhat includes representatives from different transportation agencies, businesses. and environmental groups). Observations and Sugesdons 1. MPO as reaiooal forum Even with the Greater Houston Chamber of Commerce and Supergroup's pursuit of regional transportation issues. the MPO should be the defmitive forum for establishing a region-wide transportation vision and for region-wide decision making on significant transportation projects. The 3-C plannina process should be supported by politica l and business leaden as the forum for creating the vision for regional mobility. r e sponding to the CAAA and ISTEA. dec i ding what significant transportation projects to fund, and whether additional funding sources are needed to fmance the completion of the long range plan. While it is reasonable to expect that there will be dialogue outside the formal MPO process. this process. with its requirements for openness and public participation. is the appropriate forum for developing a region-wide vision. 2. MPO desiption .. HGAC should modify its descriptions of the organization of the MPO and the 3-C planning process to eliminate any confusion over which body the Board or the TPC is the official MPO. 6 7


This is a blank page


REVIEW OF THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS IN THE ClllCAGO METROPOLITAN AREA March 1993 prepared for: U.S. Department ofTransportation Federal Transit Administration Oflice ofPlanning and Federal Adminiatration Office ofEnVU'Oillllent and Planning prepared by: U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Special Programs Administration John A. Volpe National 'l'rana1lortation Systems Center Cambridge, MA 02142


ID. Oaantzatlo n and Manaacmcnt o C the P!ann jn a Proem A. Metropo lit a n Plannln& Orzanlzation Desl&na tio n . The Chicago urbanized area has two MPOs -CATS and the Northwestern Indiana Regional P lanning Commission (NIRPC). The City o f Chicago is within the boundaries of the CATS region, which was the focus of this review. The Policy Committee of CATS was formally designated as the MPO for northeastern illinois in 1975 and reconfirmed in 1981. The northeastern illinoi s region is compriJed of six counties: McHenry, Lake, Cook, Kane, Dupqe, and Will Chicago is located almost entirely within Cook County; the surroundin& counties are refemd to as "the collar counties. NIRPC, the MPO for the other part of the urbanized area, is comprised of neighboring counties in the northwest comer of Indiana. The two MPOs coordinate transportation plans and proarams and participate in the other's technical committee processes. NIRPC is a member of theCA TS Work Pro&ram Committee and CATS is a member of NIRPC's Traruponation Policy Committee. The Slaffs of both qcncics work together on technical studies with bisw.c significance. B. MPO Members Roles and ResponsibUitles Appendix 4 provides a list of the MPO m e mben. TheCA TS Policy Committee, which is multi modal in nature, is comprised of transportation representatives from the federal, State, regional, and local governments, and transportation operators. Each member participates in regional planning and programmin& related to transportation improvement. Appendix S documents additional responsibilities of each member.


APPENDIX 4 MPO Members CATS Polic:y Committee Kirk Brown, Chairman Seereury Tllinois Depanment ofTransportalion Ruional Laura A. libben Executive Director Representing Regional Transponation Authority Sheila A. Schultz President Northeasteru Ulinois Planning Commission Rcnr escnratives of Local Government Jack B Williams PresidC11t, VIllage of Franklin Park Representing CATS Council of Mayors DavidS. Jr. Commissioner, Department of Public Works Representins city of Chicaso Robert L. Hedrick Chief Enaineer, Highway Department Representin& Cook County Donald G. Zeilenp Director, Division of Transponarion Representin& DuPage County Nabi R Falcroddin Director, Division of Transponarioo Representins Kane County Robert Depke Chairman Lake County James R Rakow Superintendent of Hi&hways Representing McHenry County ,.


2 Roy S. Cousins Superintendent of Highways Representing Will County Transwaation Operatjons Alfred H Salvage APPENDIX 4, Cont. Executive Director, Chicago Transit Authority Michael W. Payette Vice President, Chicago & North Western Transportation Company Representing Railroad Companies Jeffrey R Ladd Chairman, Commuter Rail Board (Metra) John D. Rita Chairman, Sou!h Suburban Mass Transit District Representing Mass Transit Districts John McCarthy President, Continental Air Transpon Representing Private Transponation Providers Florence H Boone Chairman, Suburban Bus Board (Pace) Roben L Hickman Executive D i rector, Illinois State Toll Highway Authority Jay W. Miller Division Administrator Representing Federal Highway Administration Joel P. Ettinger Area Director Representing Federal Transit Administration Secretary Aristide E. Biciunas Executive Director, Chicago Area Transponation Study


APPENDIX 5 Agency Roles In addition to participating in the regional plannins and programming process, each agency has specific roles: lOOT: provides statewide and intermodal perspective, and performs EIS and implements major facilities RTA: coordinates transit proarams development and acts as transit banlcer, comptroller and advocate for the region NIPC: ensures consistency with comprehensive planning and provides regional development direction Coundl of Mayon: programs FAUS fuods and acts as a fonun for local officials City of Chlcqo: performs EIS and implements major facilities in Cbicago, inc:luding major projects for CTA Counties: plan and Implement county transportation facilities CTA, Metra, Pace: petform system operating srudies, develop capital programs and provide operating perspective Railroad companies, mass transit districts and private providen: provide the private sector perspective to the plannin& forum IS'IliA: performs EIS for major facilities and is potentially the builder/operator of major highway facilities in the region FHW A, FT A: preview national policy 73


This is a blank page


RSPAIVNTSC-SS-TM392-03 REVIEW OF THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA METROPOLITAN AREA AUGUST1993 prepared for: U.S. Department of'l'nmsportation Federal Transit Administration Office of Planning and .' Federal Administration Office ofEnVU'Omnent and Planning prepared by: U.S. Department of'l'ransportation Research and Special Programs Administration John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center Cambridge, MA 02142


m. Orpnjzation and Manaeement of the Planning Process A. Metropolitan PlaDDing Organization (MPQ) Desipation SCAG is an association of general purpose governments from the six counties (Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, and Imperial) and over 180 cities in the region. SCAG is designated as the MPO by the Governor of California. SCAG is the MPO for the nine urbanized areas centered in the Los Angeles area and encompassing most of Southern California. The San Diego urbanized area has its own MPO and planning process. The urban transportation planning process and transportation plans are coordinated with the San Diego process through the efforts of Caltrans and through coordination of technical and policy advisory committees and staff. The Executive Director of SCAG commented that coordination with San Diego could be bener. B. MPO Members Roles and Responsibilities SCAG SCAG is made up exclusively of the cities and counties, and represented by elected officials (mayors, city council members, and county supervisors) from those jurisdictions. Implementing agencies, including the LACMTA, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), Omnitrans, the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) ; and Caltrans are not voting members of the MPO. State law has designated SCAG as a regional transportation planning agency. While the roles of the various planning and implementing agencies appear straight-(orward on the surface, roles are actually more complex and are defined by' an evolving structure of partnerships and memoranda of understanding. According to SCAG staff, where there is a need, the agency attempts to execute new agreements setting forth responsibilities. In addition to the transportation role, SCAG provides a forum for the development of options and discussion of a wide range of other issues such as growth management, housing, water and sewer, and economic development strategy. There is both a downward and upward flow of information and involvement in the region. SCAG is respOnsible for regional planning and sets the framework for county and subregional plans. The regional TIP is composed of projects proposed by the counties, state, and transit agencies that are consistent with the regional plan. SCAG's General Assembly is convened annually to define the region's long-range goals. The General Assembly is SCAG's overall governing body, and is made up of one voting delegate -an elected official from each city and county in the region; the exceptions are Los Angeles County with two delegates and the city of Los Angeles with three delegates.


SCAG's Regional Council, made up of 70 elected officials representing the 62 subregional planning districts and the six member counties of SCAG, writes policies that will accomplish the goals set by the General Assembly. These policies guide the SCAG planning staff. The Regional Council meets once a month. There are three standing committees of the Regional Council the Implementation Committee, the Planning Committee, and the Administrative Committee. These integrative committees review the recommendations for the three policy advisory committees Transportation and Communications, Energy and Environment, Intergovernmental Review, and Community, Economic, and Human Services Development and recommend Regional Council action. The Policy Committees' voting members include representatives from the Regional Council, subregional organizations, CTCs; and Caltrans. Ex-officio (non-voting) members include representatives from the Regional Advisory Council and single purpose regional/subregional agencies, including the Air Quality Districts. The CfCs, including LACMTC and ocr A, which are responsible for transit operations in their counties, are voting members of the Policy Committees; other transit operators are not directly represented either as voting or non-voting members. The Regional Advisory Council is intended to provide a major opportunity for non-profit and private sector interests to contribute directly to the development of regional policies. Effort is made to assure racial and ethnic diversity on the Regional Advisory Council and to reflect the changing demographic characteristics of Southern California. SCAG has an Executive Director who oversees the work of four departments: Forecasting, Analysis, and Modeling; Planning and Policy; Government and Public Affairs; and Administration. SCAG staff has expertise in diverse areas including transportation planning, economic analysis and modeling, forecasting, and environmental analysis. SCAG's transportation planning group represents a multi-modal planning approach planning encompasses freight and passenger aspects, as weU as road, transit, rail, and air modes. In 1992-1993, SCAG began a process to decentralize regional planning. Starting with existing institutional arrangements, thirteen subregions were asked to develop policies and strategies for the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) and to participate in monitoring the RCP (see IV.A.). Each subregion entered into a memorandum of understanding with SCAG which prescribes SCAG's and the subregion's roles in and contributions. to the regional planning process. SCAG has aUocated the fuU increase.,in planning funding from ISTEA (about S4 million) to the subregions for planning tasks, which are typically subcontracted for the subregion by SCAG. Involvement of the subregions is in its early stage. According to SCAG, the relationship is evolving between the new subregional process and the planning activities of the county commissions. The LACMT A participates in activities of the LA County subregions. SCAG expects the emergence and viability of the subregions to provide the foundation for SCAG planning success. According to SCAG, the ability to develop implementable and sound regional policies will be a direct reflection of the success of subregionalism.


SCAQMD SCAQMD has primary responsibility for air quality issues under California law within the South Coast Air Basin, including Los Angeles, Riverside, and Orange Counties, and the non-desert portion of San Bernardino County. As the MPO, SCAG also plays a role in transportation planning related to air quality. Under state law, SCAG is mandated to develop sections of the Air Emissions Inventory and prepare land use, transportation, and energy conservation components of the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (SCAQMP) for the South Coast Air Basin. Under federal law, SCAG is the regional agency responsible for SIP development. The SCAQMP, last published in 1991, is jointly developed by SCAG and SCAQMD, and is an example of strong technical coordination resulting in highly integrated transportation and air quality planning. For example, the same growth forecasts were used to develop the air quality, mobility. and growth management plans. Although Venrura and Imperial Counties are within SCAG's jurisdiction, they are in separate air basins and have separate agencies producing their own air quality management plans. SCAG does play a role in developing the air quality plans for these air basins. Relations between SCAG and SCAQMD are evolving; tensions based on differences in approach, priorities, and policies for solving the significant regional air quality and transportation problems are inevitable. For examp le, SCAG and SCAQMD had a major difference over approaches to growth management in the update to the SCAQMP. SCAG describes growth management as fundamental to the overall effectiveness of the RMP, but it did not provide enforcement mechanisms for the jobs/ho using balance and other possible growth management strategies, instead leaving implementation to local initiatives. SCAQMD, believing that this approach was too vague, proposed the removal of growth management from the air plan. SCAG countered that growth management was crucial to the balanced approach of the air and mobility plans and complemented the other components of new facilities, demand management, and systems management. The third memorandum of understanding with the SCAQMD was being prepared at the time of this review. Under this memorandum, SCAG is responsible for conformance findings" while the air quality district is responsible for program implementation under state law. County Transportation Commissions The six county transportation commissions play an important role in transportation planning and programming in the SCAG metropolitan area. The review team met with representatives of the Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Transportation Commissions. After the site review. the Los Angeles and Orange County Commissions were reorganized to become the LACMTA, and the OCTA. LACMTA and OCTA have extensive staffs and conduct a range of short and long-rang e transportation planning at very comprehensive levels. Planning by the Riverside and San Bernardino commissions appeared to have a more short-range concentration, and to be tied closely to long-range planning efforts of SCAG.


RSPAIVNTSC-SS.TM492-o6 REVIEW OF THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS IN THE MINNEAPOLIS ST. PAUL METROPOLITAN AREA November 1993 prepared for: U S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration Office of Planning and Federal Highway Administration Office of Environment and P l anning prepared by: U.S. Department ofTransportation Research and Special Programs Administration John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center Cambridge, MA 0 2142 7


m. Qrganjzatjon aod Management of the P!annlnc Process , A. Metropolitao Plaoniuc Orgaoizatioo Roles aod Respoosibilities The Council was established in 1967 to coordinate the comprehensive planning and development of the 3,000 square mile, seven county metropolitan area with its 300 governing units. Council membership consists of seventeen individuals appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the state senat=. Sixteen representatives are appointed from districts of roughly equal population and serve four year terms. The chair represents the region as a whole and is appointed by the governor. _.. The Council is empowered by state statute to prepare and adopl a comprehensive development guide for the Twin Cities that consists of policy statements, goals; standards, programs, and maps prescribing the orderly and economic development of the metropolitan area. The guide includes direction for land use, parks and open space, airports, highways, transit services, public ilospitals, libraries, schools, and other public buildings. The governor designated the Council as the MPO for the Twin Cities Area in 1973, authorizing the Council to conduct long-range transportation planning. As the MPO, the Council is the lead agency responsible for administering the federally mandated 3-c planning process, and coordinating the activities of other participants charged with carryinc out elements of the UPWP. :he other major participants in the 3-C planning process are the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), RTB, and MniDOT. To fully carry out the 3.C planning process, the Council has established a very comprehensive structure of committees to ensure the involvement of elected officials, citizens, and technical staff from local and state government, and the region's different transportation agencies. The structure is innovative in the manner that it encourages private citizen involvement in establishing priorities for regional transportation plans and programs. The Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) manages the 3.C process. II also functions as a forum for cooperative decision-making regarding transportation policy by local elected officials, citizens, and major transportation agencies. The Council has adopted the position that the TAB is responsible for assigning fundinl priorities and adopting programs: The Council may approve or disapprove a program in part or whole, but will not modify it. If modifications are required, the Council sends the program back to the TAB with its recommendations. The TAB then determines the precise form in which tho program will be resubmitted to the Council. The TAB has 30 members seventeen represent local municipalities and counties, four represent state or regional agencies, and nine, including the chair, represent the public. The citizen appointments are made by the Council. Eight of the citizens are chosen to represent the region's metropolitan districts. The four additional members of the TAB are RTB, Mn/DOT, MAC, and MPCA officials. The TAB has the responsibility for guiding regional planning, reviewing transit plans, and establismng funding priorities for projects eligible under federal programs (e.g FHWA Federal Aid Urban (FAU). Interstate Substitution, and new programs established by lSTEA). It


participates in the preparation of the l:rllrupOnation and avi ation chapte11 of the Council' s Metropolitan Development Gujde and the Ixansjt Policy Plan, and coordinates the preparation of the UPWP, and a three year TIP. The TAB also has extensive reviewing responsibilities which include monitoring the progress of the UPWP; commenting on planning, engineerina, and capital grants and projects of regional significance; and assessing RTB's Transit Imglemeutatioo Plaos To further ensure the success of the 3-C process, the TAB is supported by a full lime ttan.sporwioo coordinator who is responsib l e for advbinc and workina with the I AB chair and its sub-committees developinc the TAB' s acenda, following through on TAB decisions, and representing the I AB on the Technical Advisory Committee (T A C). The TAC and its sub-committees provide the mechanism for ensuring that the TAB considers the technical merits of proposed transportation issues, plans, and prognms. For the most pan. the T AC' s memben are city and county engineers or planners and technical staff from Mn/DOT, MTC, RTB, MPCA, and the Minnesota State Planning Acency. To date, the TAC has five sub committees which provide guidance on: I) the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Transportation System Plan ; 2) capital programs; 3) adminisuative reculatory and legislative maners ; 4 ) the Metropolitan Airport System; and 5) air quality matten Due to the tleltible funding provision of ISTEA, the Council i s currenUy considering crealing an additi onal sutKommittee to address reaionwide bikeway and pedestrian matters. Obsenatloos and Suuestloos / I ) 2) 3) The 1 6 Prospectus a document prepared by the Council on the region's transportation plannin rocess adds clarity aod dlsclplloe to the comp orgaolz.atlooal respoasib aod should be updated to relkct m:mt particularly under lSTEA and ( e a., the roles and responsibilities for im ting transportation management ). W ithout this brief but e de!cription, an outsider to the pnxess wo have a difficult time u g the someWhat complex c ommittee saucture that been esablished for add g region-wide transportation issues. The Prosgc;ctus effec ely clarifies the co ex pnxess and prov ides sufficient information to any citizen on ho participa d influenc e decision makina. The CouocU should cooslder the of creatloa llll addltlooal sub-committee to address bikeway and pedest nceivably, a more efficient alternative would be the expansion of membership o existing sub-committee to include representatives from the y and pedestrian The sauc:ture of the Twin Cities J.C plannina P. has essentially four laym o mmittees. Even thouJh this ensures the partici on of all relevant players, the comp 'ty and large number of committees concern reaarding how efficienUy tec:bni information is being and decision-making is occurrinJ. The description of tbe roles and respooslbWtles of the ommlttees supporting the 3C planning process could loclude tbe frequency witb w lch these JI'OUps meet duriDJ tbe year. This information would help clarify the influence that these technical groups have on reaional transporta tion decision-making. 81


ThiS is a blank page


REVIEW OF THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS IN THE PITTSBURGH METROPOLITAN AREA March 1993 prepared for: U.S. Department ofTransportation Federal Transit Administration Office ofPJanning and Federal Highway Administration Office of Environment and Planning prepared by: U .S Department of Transportation Reuarch and Special Programs Administration John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center Cambridge, MA 02142 83


4 III. Oreanization and Management or the Planning Proce:;s A. Planning Orsanization (MPO) Designation The Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission (SPRPC) is a public body that was created in October, 1962. The enabling legislation provides a general framework within which the powers, responsibilities and membership of the body evolved . SPRPC was formally designated the Metropolitan Planning Agency for southwestern Pennsylvania in 1974. to the 1983 designation of the Monessen Urbanized Area, SPRPC was designated as the MPO for that urbanized area (UZA) as well. The long-range Transportation Plan, TIP, and UPWP for both areas are developed through a single process by the same SPRPC staff. B. MPO Members Roles and Responsibilities According to SPRPC, the membership of the Commission has been structured to ensure responsiveness to the interests and needs of the member governments. The forty-one voting members include representatives from the six county governments (Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Washington, and Westmoreland five members each), the city of Pittsburgh (five members), PAT (one member), transit operators in outlying counties (one member), and three State agencies (PennDOT, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Regulation (PennDER), and the Governor's Office of Policy Development) that have physical planning and development responsibilities affecting the region. Five other representatives of federal, state and local government agencies participate actively but do not vote. Transportation planning and programming are among SPRPC's primary responsibilities. The Commission conducts a continuing, cooperative and comprehensive (3C) planning process to ensure the eligibility of the six-county area to receive federal funds for needed highway, bridge, transit and airport improvements. Local, state and federal agencies that have jurisdiction over such transportation functions work with SPRPC to fulfill this regional planning obligation. These agencies in cl ude the six counties and city of Pittsburgh, PennDOT, the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration and the Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAT), and the transit authorities of Armstrong, Beaver and Westmoreland Counties and the Mid Mon Valley as well as the City of Washington. Within SPRPC, transportation planning is guided by the Transportation Technical Committee, Transportation Policy Committee, and Transit Operators' Committee. Given existing levels of population and economic activity, the city of Pittsburgh and PAT appear to be under-represented in the SPRPC. Transportation planning entails three interrelated commitments: I) to prepare a UPWP; 2) to maintain a relevant areawide transportation plan; and 3) to perform a short-range transportation improvement programming function.


According to Article XI of SPRPC's Articles of Agreement, the Commission is authorized "to act as an entity to promote the plans, policies and programs developed by SPRPC in a manner and before legislative bodies as the members of SPRPC deem appropriate." SPRPC does not appear to guide all regional planning activities. The large number of governments involved makes it difficult for the Commission to direct planning. For example, some major projects, such as the $1.5 billion Mon Valley Highway, originate and are committed outside of the SPRPC process. Observations and Suggestions Consolidation of planning Significant transportation planning and decision-making, such as that for the Mon Valley Highway, are occurring outside the process managed by the SPRPC. Regional transportation planning should be coordinated through the SPRPC, and all significant regional transportation decisions should be made through the MPO decision-making process. As noted above, the city of Pittsburgh has only four of thirty-eight SPRPC votes and PAT does not participate, suggesting that the roles of the city and transit operators could be strengthened to improve the representation of the population in the region. The ISTEA requires agency coordination and gives MPOs new planning discretion. Newly flexible funding, and equivalent federal match ratios for highways and transit, are added incentives for cooperative transportation planning. 85


This is a blank page


RSPAIVNTSC.SS..TM392-0l REVIEW OF THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS IN THE KANSAS CITY METROPOLITAN AREA February 1992 prepared for: U.S Department ofTransportation Federal Transit Administration Office of Planning and Federal Highway Administration Office of Environment and Planning prepared by: U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Special Programs Administration John A. Volpe National TransportatioDo Systems Center Cambridge, MA 02142 87


n. Organization and Management or the Planning Process A. Metropolitan Planning Organization The Mid-America Regional Council (MARC), a bi-state, voluntary coalition of governments from the eight counties that comprise the Kansas City Region, has been designated as the MPO by the governors of Kansas and Missouri since January of !9n. MARC provides a forum for the presentation and resolution for a wide range of metropolitan issues such as transportation, water and sewer, and housing. Members from Kansas include the counties of Johnson, Leavenworth, and Wyandotte. The members from Missouri are the counties of Cass, Clay, Jackson, Platte, and Ray. Thiny advisory committees, comprised of Board members, technical expens, and community and business representatives, iocus on specific issues such as aging senrices, recycling, emergency preparedness, air quality and transponation. Committees dealing specifically with transponation are the Transponation Review Committee (TRC) and the Total Transponation Policy Committee (ITPC). The TRC provides recommendations to the TI'PC, which in turn advises the MARC Board of Directors. In addition, the Special Transponation Advisory Committee repons to the TI'PC on FI'A funded programs. Some committees liave a stake in transponation issues, such as the Air Quality Forum, and therefore also participate in this arena. Although formal agreements exist describing the roles and responsibilities of participants in the MPO, current roles have evolved beyond these agreements. The Board of Directors is currently examining its organizational structure and decision-making process. Any changes should be documented in an updated description of planning operations to ease understanding by outsiders of organizational structures and committee roles. MARC's suppon staff has expertise in diverse areas, including environmental, transponation planning, and economic analysis and modelling, and forecasting.


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.