The 2002 review of Florida's twenty-five long range transportation plans

The 2002 review of Florida's twenty-five long range transportation plans

Material Information

The 2002 review of Florida's twenty-five long range transportation plans
Kramer, Jeffrey H
Mierzejewski, Edward A
Florida -- Dept. of Transportation
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Transportation -- Planning -- Florida ( lcsh )


General Note:
"August 2002."
Statement of Responsibility:
prepared for the Florida Department of Transportation ; prepared by Jeff Kramer, Edward A. Mierzejewski.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
50627918 ( ALEPH )
C01-00068 ( USFLDC DOI )
c1.68 ( 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 nmm 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 008 s2002 flu||||| ||||||eng
datafield ind1 7 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00068
2 doi
(OCoLC) 50627918
1 100
Kramer, Jeffrey H.
0 245
The 2002 review of Florida's twenty-five long range transportation plans /
c prepared for the Florida Department of Transportation ; prepared by Jeff Kramer, Edward A. Mierzejewski.
Tampa, Fla :
b Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida,
"August 2002."
z Florida
x Planning.
Mierzejewski, Edward A.
Dept. of Transportation.
8 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856


The 2002 Review of Florid.a.'s Twenty-Five Long Range Transportation Plans Prepared for: T h e F lo rida Departmen t of Transp ort ation Pre p a red by: J eff Kramer, AICP Edw ard A. Mier>.eicwslci, Ph.D. P.. Center for Urban T ransp ortation R ese a rc h C oll ege of E n gineering Universi t y of So u th Florida Tam pa, F l orida 3 36205375 August 2002


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Federal and stat e transportation laws require that a long range transportation plan (LRTP) be developed in urban areas of greater than 50,000 people. The agency responsible fo r conducting the lon g range transpo rtatio n planning process is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The Florida l'>'letropolita n P l a nning Organization Advisory Council (},fPOAC) ass ists indiv idual i\-lPOs in carrying out the urbanized area transport ation planning process by serving as the principal fO(um for collecti,e policy discussion. In 1997, t he MPOAC a sked the Center for Urb an Transportation Research (CUTR) at the University of South Florida to conduct a review the L RTPs of the state's twenty-five MPOs to gain a comprehensi,e unde rs tand ing of the issues and concern s f acin g Florida's r..lPOs and the manner in which tho se issues and concer o s were being assessed and documen t ed in the long range transportation planning process. The study made sever al suggestions f o r improving t he regional transp ortatio n planning process and documenting that process in the long range transportation plans, both in term s o f technica l approach and structure. In 2000, CUTR was a s ked to con duct a com parati ve review of the updated long range transportation plans produced by the Florida MPOs located i n clean air non-attainment areas. In general, t hat review idemified a number of improvements in various compared to the 1997 LRTPs. HO\'\.tevec, ma ny o f the same issues and challenges identified in t h e 1997 study were still apparent. ln 2002, CUTR was asked to revalu ate twenty-five MPO long range transpo r t ation plans. Each MPO had comp l eted at l east one update cycle since t h e initial revi ew i n 1997. Additionally, federal transpor tation legislation added a few new emphasis areas for LRTPs and provided slightly differen t guid ance to direct the long range transportation planning process. CUTR was directed to pay particular attention to th e methods used to estabUs h project pri orities identify needs and move projects from need s plans to cost feasible plans. In genera l the quality of the most recent long range transportation plans improved significantly compared to those reviewed i n 1997 or 2000. Overall, pla.n docu mems \vere more user-friend l y and concise. They a1so c o ntained less jar gon and richer descriptions of issues and challenges. There appeared to be a somewhat more balance d reliance oo modeling and a more obvjous assessment of a wider range of planning considerations than roadway level-of-service deficie ncy. There were n ume rous examples of i nnovative pubUc invoJvement efforts and impro ved regiona l and interagency coordination. There was an incre.'lse in (he consideration of potentia l social and c ommuni t y impacts in the


decis io n maki ng process a nd thoughtful inclu sio n o f community concerns into t he decision-making process. A variety of methods were used t o select p r oject s for the cost feasible plan with t he most populat approach bei ng the use of a weigh ted priori tiza t io n fo rmu l a Almost al l the l\IPO plans i ncorpor ated t he co ncepts o f multimo dal ism and i n termo da lism, includ ing such a ltema tive strategies as intelli g en t tr an s portati o n systems (ITS), corridor mana ge ment, a n d transp o rta tion demand managemenc (fDM). Even s o, financia l shortfulls b etwee n the costs of ident ified needs an d reasonably availab le revenues r emaine d a sign ifica n t a nd widespread phenomenon When added together, t he statewide 20-year sh o rtfall e s tim ate is $37.7 billion ( in }'ear 2 000 dollars) --a 43% i ncrease over the 199 7 statew i de shortfall estimate. Alt houg h the 2002 r eview id entified n u merous i mprovements i n lon g range transp o rtation planning a rou n d the state, ad di tional actions coul d b e co nsi dered W her eas some MPOs i n te g ra te d a strong visioning process a nd/ or prindples of strategic planni ng into th eir lon g range tr:msportati o n p lannin g processes, man)' did not Alm ost aU MPOs i nclude d goals d e a lin g with safety and economic competitiveness but few systematically consi der e d t hese issue s Mos t MPOs re cognized t he i n te raction between tran s portati o n and l and use in policy statements, but a1te.rnative land us e scenarios were rarely considered. ;\II l'viPOs identified g oals, obj ectives and polic ies 10 gui de the i r long range transpo rtation plannin g proc ess but the final l ist of cost feasible p roje c t s was not always clearl y linked to t hose goals objectives and policies There was no state\Vjde consistency in how needs and expected revenu e s \vere i dentifi ed, w hac the composition of t hese estimates shoul d be o r how t his financia l info rma tion was repo rted Several MPOs staged the imp lem en tatio n o f pro jec t s i ncluded in t h eir cost feasib l e plan b u t few ident ified a specifi c me cha nis m for pr oject programm in g in long ran g e transportation p l a n Specific observations inch>ded t h e follow ing: T o gen era l, p lan d o c uments are better organized, m ore user friendly a nd significantly more de s crip t i ve; P ublic involv eme n t approaches improv ed dramatica lly thro ug hout the statet Onl y a f ew MPOs integrat ed a stro n g visio ning proce ss or stra teg i c p l anning p r incipJes into t h e ir long range tra nsport ation pJanning proc ess ;


The fina l list of cost proj e cts was not always clearly l i n k ed to LRTP goals, obj ect ives an d poli cies; M POs across the s t ate employ e d v ar ious m ethods u.ed t o m ove proj ec ts from n eed plans co cost f easib l e plans; Ther e was a somewhat more b alanced reliance on u:ansporta tion modelin g and other considerations in plan dcvdopmen t t han was observed i o prev ious plan rev iews ; and A la rg e s hortf all be tween reven ues and need s p lan costs remains sign i ficant and w idesp r ea d phenomenon. Clear and s ig n i ficant i m provement s hav e bee n ma de in both t he long ran ge trunsportation p l an n ing processes aro u nd the stat e and in individua l p l an docu me n t s. The pla n documents are bette r e a s i er to read and signifi .. c a ndy m ore descri ptive. P ublic invo lv emen t and regional coordin a tio n was dra ma tically improved a n d the pr o cess i s l ess relian t on mo deling a n d includes a w ider range of planning con side rati o ns. WhHe dearly i mproved, additional enhancernenrs co u l d still be ma de A ser ies of s uggestions are offered to en han ce du:: a n d clar ity of future lon g range transportation planning i o the sta te. In light of the i mprovem ent s already ma de, MPO s will clearly continue to increase the v alu e of Flor i da's regional long range trdn s portac..ion planning practic es. Ill


TABL E OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..... .............. ..... ........... .............. ......... ....... . ..... ................... i I NTRODUCfiON . ........ ........................... . .............. ........... ......... . ..... . ....................... 1 199 7 REVIEW OF LONG RANGE PLA N S ........ ...... I 2000 R F.VIFW OF NONATTAINMENT LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANS ....... ... ... ... ......... . ... ... .... ... ..... ... ............. ... ... ..... 3 2002 REVIEW OF LONG RANGE TR.'\NSPORTATION PLANS ............. 5 O b servations ................................ .................. ....................... ............................ ................... 5 Suggestio n s . . . . . ... . . . . ..... . ....... . ..... ........ ....... . .... ....... . ........ .. ... ... . . ..... ... . . .. ... .. 22 SUi\ f:i\tARY ........................................ .......................... ...................... .. ........................... 25 I V


INTRODUCTION The Tcansportatioo Equ i ty Ace for the 21" Cenmry {TEA-21} and its predecessor, the Inter modal Surface Tcansportation E fficienc y Act (ISTEA), strengthened local and regional authorit} in uansportacion planning. r.., luch of c his new r e sp ons ibility fell t o the Metropolitan P l annin g Organization (MPO}, the federally designated agency responsible for overseeing rransponation planning activities in metropolita n :>reas with populations of greater than 50,000 peop le. Among other requiremen ts, ISTEA and TEA-21 required MPOs to adop t long caoge t ransport ation plans (LRTPs} that were based on a zo .. ycar time framc; were cost feasib l e based on reasonably expected revenue sources over c he lif e of th e LRTP, and took into cons i deration several enumerated planning factors. There was also an incr eased emphasis on i nvolving the public in the decis io n making process, adheren ce to dean air scandards. system preservation and increased integration o f transportation modes. In general, lSTEA and TEA-21 shifted the focus of transportation pl a nning away from narrowl y a d d ress ing traffic congestion through new highway construction to hotistically resolving identified transportation needs through enhanced muhimodal transportation a l ternar.ive< and improved long range ttansportation deci sion making However, while JSTEA and TEA-21 required the integration of several new cons i derations in rhe long range transportation planni ng process litde additional specific guidance was provide d. The result has been a proliferation o f approaches to LRTP development across the nation and state. 1997 REVIEW OF LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANS In I 997, the Metropolitan Planning Organization A dvisory Council (MPOAC) asked the Ce nter for Urban Transporta tion Research (CUT R ) to conduct a comparative review of the LRTPs of Florida's twency-five MPOs. The overall resea rch focus was to gain an understanding of the prevailing iss ues and challenges facing t he different urbanized areas o f the s ta t e and to identify the methods in which MPOs chose to address them. Several notable iss ues were identified fro m the 1997 ana l ysis o f t h e rwenry-fivc MPO LR TPs. One major conclusion was that an abund a nce of plans were driven 1


by mnsportation modeling with limi te d consi d er ation o f other issues. No standa r d i zed m echod for identifying and defining a furore transponation need existed and there was w i des prea d uncercainty related to the identification of fuwre revenue, resulting in s i gnificant funding shorrfa!Js around t h e state The statewide 20-year funding s hort fall, adjusted for varying base years and hol'izon years, was estimated to be $22.3 billion expressed in 1995 dollars (26.3 billio n in Year 2000 dollars). MPOs disp l ayed different degrees of concern and attention to environmental and air qua lit y issues. J\'iany MPOs cited a general i n abi lity to interes t the public in long range transportation pJanning is sues. They attribute d in part. co a lack of resources to undertake more ambitious public involvement efforts. There were varying levels of intergovernme nta l and interregional coordination identified around the s tat e and a widespread lac k o f demo nstrat e d sys te ma tic con sider ation o f safety Many MPOs integrated Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIHS) needs into thei r LRT P s but severa l found it difficult to address FIHS n eeds and loca l needs gi,en th e genera l l ack of resources. Several MPOs focused on the relationship between transportadon infrastructure deve lo p ment and economi c compe t i tive ne ss FinaUy, there was a pervasive "sanitization" o f plan documents, offering little insight into the transponation challenges faced in Florida's metropolitan areas and the manner in which the state s lviPOs collectively addr essed those challenges. Based on that review the following sugge s tions for the next generation of long range transporcation plans were made: I nc orporate discussion of current i ssues. a strong \isioning process. and princip les of s t ra te gic planni ng into the long range transportation plans; Recognize the interaction between transportation and l and use w ith alternative land use scenar io s ; Place greater emphas i s on difficult policy trade-offs and less reliance on transportation planning mod els ; o S tand ardize reporting of certain performance measures; o Systema

Standard ize t h e timin g of p l an upda tes t h roughou t t he me tr opolit an regio n s and the reporting of e s timat ed costs a nd projected revenues; and Report finan cial information by respons i ble agenc y and facility cype. 2000 REVIEW OF NON-ATIAINMENT LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANS As require d by T E A 21, any MPO i n a reg ion that doe s not a ttain the s tan dards set f orth b y the f edera l Clean Air Act must upda t e the LRTP e\e r y thr ee year.;. Seven o f !"lorida's were i n n o natt ainment a reas includ ing the llwward Cou n ty MPO, Hillsb oro ug h Coumy MPO, MiamiD a de Cou n ty l\'iPO, P a l m Beach Co u n t y MPO, Pasco County MPO, P i nellas Cou n t y MPO, an d S p ring Hill/Hernando Cou n ty MPO. CUT R was ag a i n asked ro r eview those seven up d at ed MPO L R TPs in 2 000 to determine if ther e were a ny chan ges i n the i ssues or chaUenge.s faced by MPOs o r the manner i n which they add res s them The plans were a l so reviewed t o dete r mine if an y of the lV!POs f ollowed through on the suggestions made foUowing the 199 7 review. I n gener al, there were a num ber o f impro veme nts when comparing the 2000 updates to t h e 1 997 LRTPs, w h i l e so m e o f th e s ame issue s a nd chaUengcs r e m ained. The 2000 review findings are listed be l ow I n ge n eral, t he plan updates inclu d ed much richer descriptions of pr o b l ems and issues faced i n t h e se,en Ml'O a reas. Howeve r only a few MPOs incorporated an y visioning t echniques i nto the p lan developmen t process. More MPOs did inc orporate strategic planning princip l e s int o t heic plan devel opment practices, but this was predominately lim i t e d t o the t esti n g of widely different tran spo rtation a l t ernatives. Thete was lin1ited recognition of the in teraction between transportation and l an d use a n d n o consid eration of a lt e rnative lan d use scenarios. B y an d large the MPOs p l aced greater emp h asis on diffic ult p o licy trad e-of f s a n d willie t here was somewhat l ess reliance on transportation p lannin g mode ls, the dom i nant f actor driving p r ojec t selection rema ined roadway co ng e stion as pre d ict ed by tran sport ati o n models 'lbe MPOs started r eporting ce rtain s t a nd ard performance m easures, but few undertoo k a systematic assess ment of s afecy considerations or system atic ally consid eted hurr i cane eva cuation No s it,>nilicam s t eps were taken to standardize the timing of plan upd a tes as 3


TEA-21 tequire s nonatca imnem ateas to updat e their LRTPs on a di f ferent cycle chan MPOs i n attainment areas While no effort was mad e to stan dardize reporting of estimated costs and projected reven u es, most of the seve n MPOs reported costs and .evenues similarly because they generally used the same source of information the FOOT. The ddving force behind cost estimates remained the manner io which MPOs defined transportation needs. The standatd modeling approach in whlch needs are i dentified based primarily on congestion r eHef> te nds to lead t o a l atge number o f needed highway w i d en ings. I n addition, MPOs tended co meec d1eir transit "needs .. wich premium tunsic services (express bus and rail technologies). Ptemium ttansit setv ices and hig hWlly widenings are expen sive and tesult in a ve r)' expensive list o f needed ttansportation projects As was found i n the 1997 re\iew, the combination of insufficient and uncer tain fundi ng and broad definiti ons of t tansponlltion needs resulted in t h e universa l identific a tion of f undin g shortfalls. The 20 year funding shortfall fot t h e seven LRTPs reviewed was estimated to be $14. 3 bill.i on, an increase of approximately 30 percent over the 1997 funding shortfall estimate fot those same seven MPOs. MPOs started reportin g financial information by responsib l e agency and facilit}' type Public involvement e f forts vatied greatly among .MPOs. A few MPOs did not change thei r p u blic involvement strategies (ho l ding a few public meet ings and o n e public hearing dudng the middle of the day at a government facil ity) from 1997 and t he resu l ts Qittle attendance and low citizen i n put) reflec ted that Other i\fPOs dramatically i m proved their public invo l vement strategies by increasing the frequency, timin g and location of public mee t ings, sending n ewsletters devo t ed to plan update iss ues to a wide audience, deve lopi n g i nte(active disp lays for placement at local activi t y centers, placing televam plan informatio n on a dedi c ated w e b site and othet such techniques. These MPOs found t ha t whi l e i t was sti.ll not a simple rask to i nterest t he average citizen in long range tra nsportat ion planning issue s, publ ic participation and input did increas e aod issues that the communiL y f ell strongly about wete ide n tified that migh t otherwise have gone unnoticed. Improvement was seen in addressing air qualit)' i ssues 4


2002 REVIEW OF LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANS In 2002, CUTR was once again asked co conduc e a comparative review o f the LRTPs of Florida's twenty-five MPOs. The timing was appropriate beca use each of the twenty-five M.POs ha d completed a t least a m i n o r u pdate of t he LRTPs originally reviewed in 1997 The scope of this review remained essenriall)' th e same as earlier e ffom. Particular attention was to be paid to the methods used to establish project priorities, identify needs and move projects fro m needs p l ans to cos t feasible p l ans. Several years had passed since lSTEA altered long range transportation plann ing practice and TEA-21 had been adopted as the successor to ISTEA. The emphasis on long range decision-making first estab l ished in ISTEA was con tinued i n TEA-21. W hile specific tec hnical guidance remained limited, an effo n was made in TEA-21 co strea m line t h e long range p lannin g focus by condensing the original s i xteen planning factors enumerated in ISTEA in to these seven broad plan ni ng considerations: Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially b)' en abling glo ba l competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency; Increase the safety and security of che transportation system for motor i zed a nd non-motor ized users ; Incre ase the access ibility and m obiliry options available to people a n d for freight; Protect and enhance the environme n t, pro mote energy conservation. and improve quali\)' of life; Enha nce che i ntegration and connecti viry nf the transportation S)'Stem, across a n d be tween modes, for people and freight; Ptomme efficient system ma n age meot a nd and Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation s y stem Observations In ge neral, the quality of the most recent long range tran s portation plans i m proved significantly compared to those rev i ewed in 1997 o r 2000. Overall pla n documents more u ser-friendly and condse They also contained Jess jargon and richer descriptions of issues and c ha llen ges. There appeared 10 be a somewhat more 5


balanced reUance on modeling and a m ore obv ious assessment o f a wider r an ge of p lanrun g conside.rations than roadway level -ofse:tvicc defidenc;y. T here \vcrc numerou s examples o f i nnovative public i nvolvement e fforts and improved regiona l and int eragency co o r dination. There was an i ncrease in the conside _ration of potentia l social a nd community impacts in the decision making process a n d thoug htfu l i nclus ion of C<)mmuniry concerns into t h e decision-making process. A vari et)' o f methods were used to select projects fo r the co st feasible p la n with the m os c popular approac h being t h e use of a weighted formula. Almost a ll the MPO p lan s i n c orporated c he concepts of mulcimodaUsm and intermodalism, i ncluding such alternative strategies as intelligent tra nsporta tion s ys tem s (ITS), corridor ma nageme n t, and transp o rtation demand mana gement Eve n so> financial s h ortfalls betwee n the costs o f identified n eeds and reasonablv a vai la b l e reven u es remained a signi fica n t ac\ d wi despre ad phenomenon. When added tog e ther the scatewide 2 0-year shortfall esti mat e is $37 7 b illion (in year 2000 dollars) --a 43% i ncrease over th e 1997 statewide shortfa ll estimate. Although the 2 002 review identified numerous i mprov eme ntS i n long range transportation p l anning aro u nd the state, additional actions could b e considered Whereas some l'v!POs inte grated a strong vision ing process a nd/ or principles o f s tr a tegic planni ng into their lo ng range transportation planning pwcesses, man)' did not. Almost all l'.!POs i n cluded g o a l s d ea l i n g with safety and economic competitive n ess but few sy stemacicaU y considere d these issu e s. Most MPOs recognized the interactio n between transportation and lan d use in their policy st1temems, but alternative land use scenarios w ere rarely considered. All MPOs i dentified goals, obj ectives and policies t o guide thei r Jong range tran sportatio n plannin g proce ss, b u t the final list of cost feasible projects was not always clea rl y linked to cl1ose goals, obj ectives a n d po1icie,s. There was n o statewide consistency i n how n eeds and ex p c ct e

Observa tion s made during the 2002 review of F lori da's cwency-flve MPO long range transportation plan s are presented below. In general, p lan documen t s are better organized, more user friendJy and significantly more descriptive. The maj ority o f MPOs provide desc riptive summaries of challenges and solutions i n place of the pages of transportation model ou tp u t and spread sheet information that were prevalent i n 1997. Many MPOs i n cluded user friend l y charts, graphs, m aps and other visu a l aids to enhance th e readability of the plan doc u ments and make comprehe nsion of the core material easier. Also, several MPOs prod u ced hard copy and elec tr onic s umm ary docume nts highl i g hting t h e key i nformation contained i n the complete plan document, makin g th e inform a tion more acce ssib l e and easier to comprehend. Many of che

informed of concerns, issues, challenges, ass essment approaches a n d other decisions made d u rin g the long range t ransporcacion planning proce ss. Public involvement appwaches improved dramat ically throughout the state. Public involvement efforts throughout the state were more creative, more varied and more effective than i n previous long range plan development processes. Public invo lvement techniques ind\lded such standard cc.::chn.iques as public p r ess releases and newsletters. "More innovative tech n iques use d around t h e scare i ncluded : focus group research i n PensOlcola, a visuaJ preference survey i n Hillsboroug h County. simulacion games i n Char .. lott e Cou n t); a regio nal survey in O rlando i n coopera tion with co rporate part n ers in the reg ion, a random telepho n e poU i o Hillsbo r ough County, a visio ning cha.rette in GainesviJie, multi-Jjngual p ublic i nforma tion materials in Miami -Dade Coumy, area specific meetings in TallahasseeLeon County, television programming i n Sarasot a and Counties and traveling displays and kiosks i n Pinellas and Palm Beach Cou n ties Also, here was an increased effort made t o r each out to traditionally u ncle( represented popu l ations t hrough 111rgeted public i nvolvement activities b y severall\ IPOs ar(>Und the s tate. The a pplic a tion of t hese varied public invo lvement techniques resu lted in higher l evels of public participation than ha s previously been t he case. Although the systematic consideration of safety was somewha t improved, particularly rela1ed to hurricane evacuation, the practice was still not widespread. Almos t aU MPOs addressed the issue of safe t y as a broad goa l in their long rtnge cran sponation p l an, but only a few MPOs addr esse d i ssues o f safe t y in a syste m atic manner. Generally, MPOs that systematically considere d issues of safety d i d so through the i r p rioritization process for selecting cost fea s i b l e p lan projects. Most MPOs used h urricane eva cua tion and/ or cras h staciscics as a criterion in their weighted prioritization formulas. Ot her MPOs si m ply ide ntifie d the i r h i g h est crash locations or most congested hurricane evacuation routes and incl u ded improvements to thos e facilities i n rheir list of cost feas i ble p r ojects. The Charlotte County -Punta Gorda MPO '""d a model developed by t h e Natlona 1 Hurricane Center to estimate storm surge during hurricanes of vario u s intensities. This data was t hen ma t ched against roadway chamcteris tics of hurricane evacuation routes (such as d r ainage conditions during 8


flooding and traffic volu m e during an evacuation) to determ i n e \\' hich were mos t li k ely to be significantly impacted during a hurrica ne. Tbe resu l ts of t his comparison were then use d to ide ntify needed improvements to address hurri cane evac u ation concerns. The Polk TPO ga v e extra consideration to high crash locations by giving an in t he p riori t ization process to roadway projects with a safety ratio of one or more. The safety ratio i s a meas u re of how safe any given ro a dway segmen t is versus other s imilar roadway s egments in the state. This rotio is calcu l ated by dividing the actua l cras h rate (crash e s p e r million vehicle m iles trav ele d ) by the critica l crash rate (the average crash rate o f s imi l ar roads t hrough ou t Florida) Regional/interagency coocdination has i.mpcoved Plan docume nts from across t he stat e reflected i ncreased coordination with neighbo r ing 1\'IPOs and wit h other stakeholder agencies The Fort Walton Beach MPO sou ght out and r e cei v ed sign i fica n t inpu c from Egli n Air Fo rce Base The Brev ar d Cou nty MPO coordinated with the plans of t h e Kennedy Space Center and Flodda Space Pon. Several MPOs coordinated t heir long range aansporcation planning effort with che lo ng range pla n n i ng efforts o f local universities. In a few c ases formalized coordination occurred with neighboring MPOs. T he Treas ur e Coast MPO s (th e ln

Almost all MPOs incorporated the concepts of intermodalism and multi-modalism into their long range transpottation plans. Almost all MPOs planned ior multi modal improvements w i th imermodal connectiv i ty. For man y MPOs, this was t he ir first mu l ti m odal long range t ran spormtion p la n Improveme nts incl u ded in plans acro ss the state ranged from bike paths and s i dew alks to multi use trai ls, from lig ht and heavy mil lines to bus rapid transit and from .HOV lanes to exptess bus routes. T h e Hillsborough County M PO even developed a long rnnge t ra nspottation de mand man agement (T OM) plan The Tallahassee/Leon County MPO con d ucte d a two cicrcd walkability /bikability analys i s co target b i cycle and pedemian enhancements ro Meas t ha t ha ve a h igh potential for bic y cle and pedestt ian activity. Severa l MPOs now sec asid e flexi b l e federa l funds to be us ed for tronsi t and other nonhig h wa y p rojects to be selec te d as pate o f the annual project prioritization process. However, few MPOs considered nonhig h wa y a l ternatives in place of h i ghway capacity impr ove ment s Rather most MPOs considered non highway i mprovement s in a dditio n to highway improve m ents. There were a few notab l e i n both l arge and small MPOs One l arge MPO example is the Broward Cou nty li IPO. As matter of policy the Browatd County ?\tPO Board sought to minimize roadway w idenings and increase trans it ser v ice -.tnd conneccivic:y in place of incr eased highway c.apacicy. Highway and transit a l te rnatives were considered simultaneous l y duting a l ternatives testing This approach resu l te d in significant spend i n g oo Wlnsic im prove ments relative to highway i mprov ements An example of a small MPO holi stically considering highway and non h i g hway alternatives toge t het is in Gainesv ille. The Gainesville i'vfPO cons id ered all modal alternatives together in support of their land use vision. The result was a project m i x chat jncJuded express bus service:. new roadway corridots co connect existing roadway corridors and a lane red<1ction wit h enhanced pedestr ian and bicycle facilities in yet another corridor. This approach provided a blu eprint for a funre tronsporcation system tha t meers defined needs w i t h an appropr iate m i x o f modal facilities. More consideration was given to social and community issues in the long tange transportation planning process. Cons i derations ftcound the state included t he presecvation of the natura) environment the avoidance and mitigation of community i mpacts (cut through traffic and divis i on o f a cohesive nei ghborhood, etc.), the level of c

cultural an d h istor ic resour c es Additionally, severa l Jl,'iPOs cons i d e red the pot entia l impact o f pro jectS b oth i n divid ua lly and as a whole, on m i norit) and lowi ncome popul ations. In some cases proj e c t s w ere specific ally i n .cluded in cost feasible p l ans i n order to m i tiga t e p o t e n tial impacts as i dentified throu g h cons iderati o n o f potenti a l s ocial and community i mpacts. In o t her cases, proj ec ts we r e speci fica lly exclu de d from cost fea s i b l e pl a n s ro a void creating new impa c ts or compoun ding existing ones. The most common mechanism for consider ing pot e ntia l s ocial and c ommu nity impacts w a s t o i n tegra t e them into the p roject prioritization process For examp l e, t h e Panama C i ty MPO c o n side red the l evel of community s upport as a qualitative factor for includ ing ca n didate proj ec ts i n the cost feasibl e pla n T h e firs t scree n of t h e P o l k TPO three tier screen ing p r ocess was an asse s sment o f potentia l significant n e g ative impact s to t h e natura l an d h um a n e n v i ronmem. Other MPOs took differen t approach es t o consider ing potentia l socia l an d communi ty impac ts. The l\ !ia mi-Dad c Cou nt)' MPO es t a b lis h e d a Transpor tation Aesthetics R eview Commi ttee t ha t eval u ated candi date projects l n Pan am a Cit), pro j ects were added r o the cost feas i b l e p l a n to address n eigh borhood c u t -thro u g h t raf fi c issues a n d to p rov ide community gateways. T he Spr in g HiD/Hernando County Ml'O m apped h i s toric community l ocations f o r further con sideration in the p la n n i n g proc ess The Pinell a s County 1\!PO took int o account munic i p al concerns over potenti al c o m m u nity impacts particular!)' in a f e w communiti e s near t h e US 19 corridor w h ere road\v a y i m p roveme. nts were cont c .mplated on p a r aUeJ f acilities that ran t h rough downtown commetcia l d i stricts Several MPOs attempted to consider the p o t e n tia l enviro n menta l justice (EJ) i mpacts of the i r pl ans. M o st l\-!POs ac h i eved t h i s goa l through t he p u blic i nvo l vement process by reaching out to traditionaUy u oder.rep rese n red commun i ties. So m e a lso con s id ere d the p o t enti a l EJ i mpacts of their p lans by i dentifying the geographic boundarie s of established minorit) and lowi ncome co mmun i t ies r e lative to the proposed location o f candidat e pro jccc s. l n som e c ases projec t s w ere identi fied for f u rth e r review i n l a ter stages of project development l n other cases project s were m odified or dtopped i n order to m i ti g ate pot e ntial EJ impa c t s 11


Strong attention was paid by the MPOs to the seven broad TEA-21 planning considerations and to the identified needs of the Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIHS), but little attention to the goals of the 2020 Florida Transportation Plan (FTP). Almost allll'il'Os enumera ted the seve n broad TEA-2 1 pl annin g consider ations i n t h e ir long range t ranspor tatio n plans The Lee C ounty, Spring Hill/Hernando County and Hillsbo rough County MPO LRTPs each con ta ined tables assessing how their indi v i dua l plan goals, objecti ves and policies addressed the T EA-21 pla nnin g c onsider;ltions. T he GaioesviUe MPO desc r i bed how each project inclu ded in t h e cost feas ible satisfied the TEA 21 planning considerations. The majority o f .MPO plans addre ssed th e id e n tifie d needs of the FIHS. I n som e cases, FlHS projects were i ncluded in th e cost feasib l e plan as a sepa rate proj ect category and not inch>ded in the project prioritization process. I n other cases, FlHS impro\ements were giv en priority in rhe ranking process, but not excluded fro m rhe process. The 2020 FTP o utli nes t he s tat e's transpo rtation goals and guiding prin c iples. While t here i s no requirement that MPO l ong ra nge plans consider d'le goa]s cnumeraced in the FTP, coordination bet,veen smtewide and r egional transportation efforts would be des i r able. Only two of the State's twenty-five MPO lon g range tra ns portation plans refer to tbe 2020 FTP. The I n dia n River Count y MPO describes how t heir plan advanced t he goa l s o f the 2 020 FfP. The Volusia County MPO p l an enumerates t he FTP goals and descr i bes how rhe ir lo n g range transportation pl an is consistent with rho se enumerated goals. However, ma ny of the goals of the 2020 FfP are advanced by t he goals objectives and policies of the LRTPs because of the ovedapping empha sis between the goa l s and guiding pri nciples o f rhe 2020 FfP and rhe p l anning considerations o fTEA21. Only a few MPOs integrated a sttong visioning process or strategic planning principles into their long range transportation planning process. Visioning and strategic planning princip l es dictate the consideratio n of '\vhat. if scenarios and the a ssess ment of a plan to meet t h ose various sce n a r ios Based on that definition, only a few of Flor i da's l'v!POs i ntegrated a strong visioning process or otherwise emp l oyed strategic p la nning prin ciples to guide rhe dev e lop ment of t heir l ong ra nge tran spo rtat.ion p l an. The most notabl e exampl e of a lon g range p l an based on a strong v i sioning 12


proces s is in Gainesville. The ('r.UncsviUc MPO decided t o abandon the srandard long range t ransportation planning process in which fut ure travel conditions are assessed based on the project ed distribution of population and employment -.:lCcording to future land u se information conWned in loc-a.l compreheosi,e plans. Instead, GainesviUe undertook an extensive l a nd us e visioning exer cise in w h ich four alt erna tive )and use s cenario s were ered, with consi derable commu nity i nput and i n volvem en t, and narrowed to one l and use v i s ion for the region. Needs and Cost Feasible Plan projects were t he n selec ted and tested in s upport of t h at land use vision. The result is a plan driven by a vision of what t he stakeho l ders o f t he region want their community to look like i n the future and strives to provide the necessa r y mix of tran s portation facilities to support that vision. T h e Tallahassee/Leon County MPO based their p l an primarily on s ub -area v isionin g efforts the y refer t o as the Central City and Southern Strategies. These strategies discourage continued grow th to the north of the city cen t er and refoc us development activities in the central and southern portions of the metropolitan area. Policies have bee n deve lo ped to encourage des i red development pattern. The MPO took this policy direction into accouot when projecting and distr i buting furore population and employment i n t he long range t ranspor tation planning process The result wa s the refocusing of transportatio n infrastr uc ture i m provements i n t he LR'tP to those areas of t he region. A similar sub area visioning e ffor t guided the long ronge rransporrtion planning e ffort of t he Polk County TPO. The TPO undert o ok an analysis of four separate sub areas o f t he metropolitan area in which a l tern a te population and employme n t forecasts w ere made. T he separate area specific needs anal yses led to t he appropr i ate i de ntific ation of tra nsportation im prov e ments and stra tegies i n those sub-areas. Additionally corridor studies w e re conducted in two of the sub areas co exam ine improvement a ]t erna tives for specific corridors. Development of the Charlotte County /Punta Gorda MPO LRTP was g u ided by t he Charlotte Co u n t y Vision. T h e Charlotte County V i sion was a coUaborative visioning pro cess conducted by Cha rlotte County, the City of Punta Gorda and the MPO and i ncluded the con s ideration of four alterna tive bui l d our scenarios The MPO reported that the visi oning effort re s u l ted i n billions of dollars saved in road a nd b

viUe Plan. Several projects were i nclu de d i n the c ost f ea s i ble pla n to suppo rt and >dvance Bet ter Jack sonville P l an goals and obj ectives. a Although somewhat increased, there remains limited consideration of a lternative land usc scenarios. The overw helming major ity of MPOs take land us e as a g iven and m ake future population and empl oy ment d istribution dec i sions bas ed on the i nformat ion contained in lo ca l comprehensive plan s. There are a few exception s T he Gainesville MPO Tallaha>See/L e a n Cou ncy MPO, Char l o tte Councy /Punta Gorda MPO and t h e Polk Councy TPO each considered alternativ e land usc scenarios based on v j s ionin g activi ties In a ddjtion. the Tall ah assee/ Leon County MPO i n teg rated the findings of t h e Blueprin t 2000 Plan, a compreh e ns ive v ision ing exerc ise that was condu c ted b y a n i n tergovernmental agency specifically for the p u rpose of conducti n g a n d impl e m enting the Blueprint 2 000 P lan. An example of an. MPO chac conside. red alternativ e lan d u se sce narios outsi d e of a visionin g process is the Pensacola MPO The Pensacola MPO m o dified t h e dist r i bution of future p o pulati o n away fr om N a v arre Beac h and Sout heas t E sc am bi a County coward Nort h west Esca mbi a County tO reflect a p oticy desi re to shift fu ture growt h away from the coastline of E scam b ia County. This sign ific antly change d iden tified transporta tion need s i n th e region and in t\ltn, yielded a fina l plan t ha t incl uded projects s uppor t ive o f t h e desire d p o p ulation distributi o n. In a nor her examp l e S t. Lucie Cou nty and M arti n Count)' are c urrently cond u cting a combi ned stud y o f a l ternative fururc land use sce na rio s The result s of this study ma y requ ire rec o n sidemtion o f the c urre n t MPO L RTPs and will certainly i nfl u ence the o ngoin g lo ng ra ng e ttansportation plan ning proc e sses i n both m etropolitan areas Plan horizon years and timefr2.mes are not standardized across the state Of the 25 MPO L RTPs i n F lori da 15 ar e 2025 plans while t h e re m ainin g 1 0 are 2 0 2 0 p l ans This r eflects more than t h e federall y man date d update cycle (ev er y 3 years for non atta i n ment area s every S years for t h e re st), as s everal areas o n the attainmen t area cycle completed 2025 plans cover i n g a cimcfra mc of 25 years 5 yeacs longer than the standar d LRTP. In add i tion, MPOs uith the sa me h o rizon year ( 2 0 2 0 or 2025} do not a l ways co v er the same tim e frame. Som e MPOs have chosen t o as sess t he tim e frame be twe en plan adoption a n d the plan ning horizon year ( 2002 thro ug h 2 0 2 5 for 14


example). Oth e r Ml'Os c h o s e to a ssume that t h e five year time period cov ere d by the Trans p ortatio n Improvement P rogram (I'J P) did no t need to be a cco un ted for i n long range pla n ni n g T h e s e pla n s cover o nl y the re maining tim eframe between the firs t year after th e TIP cimefr ame and th e plan ning h orizon yea r (2007 through 202 5 f o r exam p le ) As a resu l t, the 2 5 L R T P s in the cover time f rames bet we e n 15 a n d 2 5 )'('<>rs, makin g -srat c \ v i de c o m parisons o f certain types o f data p o p u l ation trends) etc.) probl ema ti c One e xam p l e o f wh e r e c his inconsist en c y i n ti ming complicat e s sta tewi de c omparisons is in popul ation crend s. Base popu lation projections in MPO p l ans a c ross the s tate range from year 1 99 0 figures to year 2000, wich most f alling i n che m iddle. These base year p opula tion figu r es a r e then proj ected to the horizon ye a r of the p l an, 202 0 or 2 025 depend ing o n t h e Ml'O. Be ca use o f th e differences betwee n the base year s, the horizon years a n d the timeframe b eing covered, d irec t compari son of th ese pop .. J acion fig u res is comp lex, req u iri n g a variety of assumptions to the figu res into a lign m ent. The reporting of financial data c ontinues to be a c omple x exercise that varies betwee n MPOs. MPOs '

The final list of cost feasible projects was not always clearly linked to the LRTP goals, objectives and policies. Goals, objectives and polices (GOPs) ore typi cally used to guide the long range process and the 6nal selection of cost feasibl e projects. Colleccively, GOPs appearing i n p lans around the state addressed a variel) of issue areas including: safety, conge.-stion capacity, environmenta l protec tion, freight movement, muJtirnodalism and incermodalisrn, e<:onomic vital ity, energy efficiency system effic i ency and preservation, system coonecUvicy, land development and growth, acc .essi bilicy, mobility coordinatio n and more. Several MPOs developed measures o f effectiveness (MOEs) based on their COPs, presumably to meas ure t h e ability of projec t s to a ddress plan goals. Examp l es of MOEs included i n plans acro s s the state include: total miles of transit setvice, percent of corridor miles served by transit, percent o f corridors with volum e to capacity ratios of 1 0, p e rcent of congested l a ne mile.s, percenc of corridor m iles with bicycle l anes, t ota) corridor mil es with sidewalks, hurricane evacuation route lane miles l ane mil es w i th historic significance, total ccashes a n d fatalities, petcenc of congested roads w i t h si dewal ks a o d more. i\Jany MPO plans inclu d ed long lists of GOPs and associa te d MOEs. However there was not always a clearly docume n ted lin k between the final liS< of cost feasib le proj ects and the original GOPs. Some LRTPs simply sta te t hat the l ist of cost feasible projects support the GOPs, b u t provide no sup p orci ng doc u me nta tion t o demonstrate this as sertion Severa l LRTPs contain a detai led list of MOEs, but inclu d e no documentation of the abi l ity of final cost feasib le plan projects to meet plan COPs either through the a p p lication of MOEs or through some other descripti,e mechanism. Even i n som e cases where a clearly defined me chanis m was applied for the selec tion of co st feasi ble plan projects, a clear link b ack to all or some o f the p l an GOPs was not established. T wo notable exceptions were t he Panama Cit) and the GaineS\>ille MPO plans. Each project included in these final cost feasible plans was de sc ribed i n detai l and an exp lan ation o f how eac h ful filled t h e goa l s o f the plans was provided. The definition of transportation need varied across the state. Som e MPOs defi ned a set o f needed transporta tion projec ts strictl y on projected level of service deficienc ies and proj ec ted tra n sit ridership demands. Other MPOs refined t he i r definition of needed transportation projects by consider i n g policy, physical and environmental constmints, effective l y reducing t he number of needed projects. Other MPOs s pecifi cally excluded projects considered to be unrealistic, coo contr oversial or 1 6


overkill. For examp l e, t h e Miami -Dade County MPO exclu d ed what they refe r red to as .. gold plated transportation options \ vhcrc cheaper al t erna tives cou ld be i de n tified t ha t still met r he pro jecr cd de m and. The Panama City MPO plan also specifically s tar ed t hat unreali sti c project s were exclu d ed from inclus ion in the nee d s p lan. The Gainesville MPO revised i ts land u s e v i sion to, in pan. generat e a more re.alistic set of needs p lan proj ects Anoth er factor d irec tly impac ting the determinacion of transportation needs is the popul at ion pcojection in the metropolitan area. Higher popu l ation growth rates tend to lea d to an incre ase i n th e projected travel demand, oft en result ing in more needed proj ects. T h er efo re, MPOs that a n ticipa ted significantly l arger popul ation growt h t han o ther si mi lar l y i\ IPOs te n ded to identify more transporta tion nee ds. As a resu l t o f these policy deci s ion s and factors, MPOs of compa rabl e size reporte d dramatically d i fferent shortfalls be tween their needs plan costs and reasonably avai lab l e re\en ue, with some s h ortfalls being very large a n d others being relatively modest in size MPOs across the state empl oye d various methods to move projects from needs plans t o cost feasible plans . The me t h ods used for selecting projec ts included in the cos t feasible plan ge n erally fell in one of thre e catego r ies: the sub jecti ve polic y driven appwac h, the deficie ncy assessme n t approach and the prioritization formula approa c h The Miam i-Dade County MPO u sed a sub j e cti ve ran k i ng ap p r oach in which all needs plan projects were assigned a score of bet,veen 10 a nd + 1 0 based on their per ceive d abi lity t o advance plan goa l s and objectives. T he lise of cos t -feas ible projec ts was based on that ranki ng, with some minor common sense m odifi cati o n s The Panama City MPO a lso emplo yed a subjective review o f n eeds plan projec t s based o n a variety o f criteria. A few MPOs s i mply performed a level-ofser v ice deficiency analysis usi ng the standard transportation mcxlel a n d s ele cted projects based on t heir ability to relieve future cong estion. The m ost popular a pproac h was the use of wei ghted priori ti zatio n formu l as This approach assigns over a ll scores to each projec t in cluded i n t h e needs p lan based on th e project's ability to satisfy a set o f ind i vidual quantitative and/ o r <]ualitativ c criteria. E-ach candidate pro ject i s assigned a scor e for eac h individual criter i on. T hen a n over a ll project score is tab ula ted based on a formula that is generally weig h ted co reflec t a given p olicy empha s i s. Projects are then ranked by their total score and in clu ded in t he cos t feosible p l an a s projec te d rev enues permi t. A few :tiIPOs use formu l as w i t h different cri t eria dependi n g on the mode of the projec ts hei ng cons idered For 17


example, the Hillsborough Councy MPO employed 10 criteria in a weigh red formula u s ed to prioritize highway projec ts, 9 differenc criteria in a weighted formula r o prioritize bicycle and trail projects. anochec 4 criteria i n the sidewalk f o rmub and yet another S cr i teri i n t he transit formula. One of t he mo s c cx.censive prioritization methodologies was found in the Polk TPO LRTP. The Polk TPO employed a t h ree-cie. analysis of candidate projects. The first tier was a fataltlaw analysis in which projects with the potential to create significant negative environmental or community im pacts were elim inated from the c a ndidate project list. Those projects t ha t passed the tier 1 screening were then evaluated under tier 2 and 3. The second tier gave w eight tO projtcts that were need ed in the shott te rm, projec ts chat were candidates for later phases of the project development cycle, and projects that contributed tO system preservation. The third tier as sessed proj ects relative to TEA-21 planning coosidentions The specific criteria ass j gned points a:elacive co a. candidate project's perceived abilit}r to reliev e traffic c onges tion, improve f reight/go ods mov ement and economic com pet i tiveness, improve community livability and no t negative l y impact neigh borhoods and businesses. avoid jmpact s to t he natural environment and address safety concerns. There was a somewha t mote balanced teliance on transportation modeling and other considerations in plan deV'elopment than was observed in previous plan reviews. H i storically, identifying future roadway Jovel rvice (LOS) deficiencies and future roadway projects to improve those d e ficiencie s has been the primary f ocus of long range transportation planning i n Fl o rid a These p l anning processes reli ed heavily and sometimes exclusively on the output of transportation models. Long range t ra nspo rr. ttin n p lans were filled with mo

renaincd the overwhe l ming force behind cost feasible p roject selection. Detailed consideration of economic competitiveness and/ o r freight movement was not widespread. Whi l e mos t i\IPOs induded the issue of economic com petitiveness and/ or freight and goods movement in plan goals and objectives, onl) a few MPOs considered these issues ict any detaile d or sys t e matic f a shion during development The majority of MPOs t hat did consider these i ss ue s in a more concrete fashion typicaUy d i d so t hrough c hcir project prioritization process. A few MPOs escabUshcd freight a nd goods move me n t advisory boards. The Miami-Dade County MPO i nclu ded projeCts i n c he i r cost feasible plan for the explicit purpose of improvi ng freight movement to enh ance economic competiti veness. An r unnel project was included i n (he cos t feasible plan to enhance access to the Port of f\nry. Indian !Uver Councy also i dentified a nd mapped i ntermoda l f acility lo cations and roadways that serve c hose f acilities as weU as heavy truck traffic roadways. T h i s information was used to focus p)an development in a1') effort to mee t freigh t and goods mov ement needs i n both MPO Meas Corridor management and preservation was considered by a few MI'Os in the of their long tange transportation plan. A few MPOs addressed the issue of corridor management and preset\atioo. The St. Lucie Couocy MPO iden tified corridor preserv ation as one of the criteria used to prioritize needs p la n projects f or inclus ion in th e cost feasib l e p l an. The Martin County MPO i ncluded a map identifying the right-of-""Y r equirements of the long cange tnnsportatio n plan. The map identifies generalized roadway r equ i reme n ts t he future m aximum Cl\lmber of through l:.tncs, chc ro a dway and consc raincd fadlities The Hillsborough County MPO plan incl u ded a plan o b jective t o s upport chc adoption of local right-of -wa y preserva tion pol icies and ordinances and i n cluded the preserv ation of land for future transportation needs a s a 19


prioritization criterion for evaluating candidate projects. The Spring Hill/ Hernando County l\'IPO p l an also included a p l an objective that encouraged t he preservation of r i ght-of-way sufficient to occommodate road""')' r

Few MPOs defined a specific mechanism for project programming in the long range transportation plan. Several MPOs clicl identify a time frame for project implementation through the Staging of the i r cost f easi b l e plans into shortrangc (in teri m) a nd long range components. Staged plans were typically broken into two or t h ree srages covering relatively e<.Jual time frame s within the broader time frame of the overaU p lan clocnme n t. In a few cases, the first scage included only projecrs t hat were a l ready programmed in the then current Transporr acion Improvement Progr a m (TIP). MPOs that staged t heir cost feasible p l a n ind ica te d chat t h e y u se the scaging as a guid e for priori t izing projects duri ng the a110ual project programming proce ss. The M arcin County MPO i dentified specific criceria for annuaUy prior i tizing cost feas i ble plan projccc s for i ncl us ion i n the TIP. The rankin g assigned t o candidate projec t s in the Gainewille MPO Needs Plan is maimained for programmi n g p ur poses. Therefore, rhe number one ranked candidate projec t was included at the cop o f the cos t feasible p lan list o f projeccs a nd is in line for f unding a hea d of any orher cost feas i ble plan project. A large shortfall berwcen tevenues and needs plan costs remains a significant and widespread phenomenon, leading to a statewide 20year shortfall estimate of $37.7 billion in Year 2000 dollars (a 43% over the statewide sho(tfall estimate from 1997). Taking the issue-s to the reponing of financial data and the identification o f needed transportation improve m ents, it rema ins obvious that eac h MPO finds itself wirh too little revenue to meet antic i pat ed needs w i thin the timeframe of their individual long range uaosporra tion p l an ShonfaUs for individual MPOs ranged from as l ow as $86.3 miltion to as high as $5.62 b i llion in Year 2000 dollars. Inter esti ng l y the s ize of the individual metropolitan area was not always a determinan t of t h e site of the shorrfaU, as some smaller MPOs reported larger financial s horrfatl s than MPOs in large r metropolitan areas. The s t atewide 20-year s hortfa ll, ex pressed in year 2000 dollars, was estimated to be $37.7 billion. This is 43% g reater than the S26.3 b i llion dollar shortfall estim a ted i n 199 7 (as expressed in Year 2000 doUars). l'his stacewjde shortfall estimate was calcu l ated using information from ea;ch ind ivid ual MPO plan, supplemented by informatio n provided by MPO staff. Some adj ustments were necessar y to methodicall y compare th e financial 21


in forma tion and arrive at a cumulative statewide financial shonfaU estimate All financial data was adjusted to reflect year 2000 dollars In order t o accoum for differing p lan horizon yea rs ( 2020 and 2025) and different time periods CO\ered by individ ual MPO p lans (ranging between I 5 and 25 years}, an average annua l shortfall estimate was calculated by dividing t he total financial shortfall by the number of years covered by the plan The cumulaci\e average annua l p la n shortfall estimates were then mul ti plied by 20 to arr ive at a statewide 20-ycar shortfall estimate, expressed in year 2000 doUars As has been previous l y noted, the composition of needs plan costs varied around the state. Some MPOs included operating costs in their total needs p l an cost estimate. Some MPOs included h i g hway, tcansi t and other non motorized projec t costs in their total needs plan cos t estimate while others only i n cluded hi g hw ay proj ect costs. Other MPOs included some alternative combination of project co s ts. It was not always clear from the information a vailable how various project cMegories comri buted tO the overa!J shonfall. Suggestions Based on the 2002 MPO LRTP review observations, th e suggestions below a r e offered to i mprove the effectiveness and clar ity of futu r e LRTP updates. Where possible, provide informative descriptions of issues faced, challenges overcome and policy decisions made in clear and simple language within the plan document. An overreliance on references to inform acion contained in technical reporcs and appendices can obscure the core information provided in the primary do c ument. Reducing such references and improving descr:ipcions in the primary text will enhance the quality of the long range transportation planning process. Incorporate a strong visioning process and ptinciples of strategic planning into the long range transportation planning process. T h e rc sult will be a planning process that is grounded in a consensu s view of what the comm u nit y shou l d look li ke in the future, identifies chaU enges faced in achieving that visi on and fosters the development of strategies for addressing those challenges 22


Recognize the interaction between transportation and land use by considering alternative land use scenarios. T his could b e accomplished through a vis ioning p r o cess or other means. Wha teve r the approoch, consi d eri ng alternative land use scenarios would r esult i n a m ore appropriate mix of p l anned tra ns portation faciUtics and h elp bring the local land use planning process and transportation p l anni n g process into ba lance. Clearly link the final list of cost feasible plan projects to plan goals, objectives, and policies. This can be done through the app l icat ion of measures of effectiveness, thro u g h pr oject desc r iptions, o r through a varie ty of other mec hanisms. Linking cost feasible pro j ects back tO the origina l goa l s clearly d ocu m ents the consistency o f the decision-making process and strengthe n s the credibil i ty of the process Integrate consideration of potential social and community impacts into the long range transportation planning process. Considetation o f potentia) social and communir.y jmpacts ,viJJ streamline the projec t development process for each individual proj ect con rained in th e cos t feasible p lan and impr ove public acceptance of t h e p la n i n general. Cooperatively develop guidelines for determining needed projects. While ev ery MPO shou l d decide its own i n d ivid u a l needs, the defini tion of need varies dramatically across the s tate A few needs plans around the s tare appeared to i nclude premium transportation o ptions \vhere a les s expe.ns i vc or l ess controversial option would have satisfied the defined transportation need. This infla tes the reported cost o f transportation needs in t ha t MPO area a n d may reduce the credibility o f the planning effort in t he eyes of fede(ll] and state officials as well as the general p ublic. Develop ing and applying cons i stelll guidelines for defining transportation needs would provi d e a more realistic assessment of actual needed transportation i m provemems and help normalize financial s h ortf a U estimates around the state Where appropriate, consider non-highway improvements in place of, rather than in addition to, highway Wherever MPOs should consider non-highway alternatives t o meet i d entified transportation needs and other policy goals. This should incl u d e 23


not only transi t b icycle and pe des t dan facilities but also i ncelligent cranspor cation systems te chn ology and trans po rtatio n demand management sr.rate g i es The resul t will b e a t rul y multimoda l long ran ge t ra nsporta tion plan chat the mobility need s of the metropoli tan are a with the appropriate ttansporcation mode unde_ r the appropdac e circ u m s t ances Select cost feasible plan projects from among candidate projects using a systematic methodology that addresses a variety o f policy concerns. T h i s will res u l t i n a proj ect selection proc ess that ba l ances a variety o f comm u nity concerns in a clea r and d e f enda ble manner and enh a nces t h e ability of t h e responsi b l e trans porca tion agency to e ffccti\el y i m plem e n t chc ptoject. It wiU aJso r educe the over reliance on tran s p ortation modeling in the long range transportation pl anning p r ocess Cooperatively d e velop guidelines for reporting financial data. The guidelines sho u ld cover the composition of revenue s and costs ) the timefr a me to be covered by t h e fina ncial d ata and che ba se year Currently, t h e financial data containe d in t he s tate's M P O Ll\rPs varies from plan to p l an. Different tim efram es ar e covered, the compos icion o f costs and revenues c h ange from .t-.IPO to MPO and base ye a rs are inco n s ist e nt. Con s i s te nc} r in th e r eporting of financial data wou l d make acc urate statewjde compa r isons pos s ib l e and enhance the ability of th e M.POAC and FOOT to h elp MPOs m eet t he t ra n sportatio n n eeds of their regio n s a n d in turn t he srate as a whole. Whenever possible and appropriate, coordinate planning activities \vitb n eighbo

activities to negotiated right of-wa y d edication through the land de,elopment proces s Define a specific mechanism or strategy for programming p rojects included in the cost feasible plan. T he establis hmen t o f a specific mechanism or strategy for funding cost feasib l e plao projec t s will streaml ine and > i mplify the annual programming process It will a lso establish a scronger t i c between long range tra n sporta tion pla nning a t t h e systems level and project plannin g at t he individual proj ect l e vel by crecing a transparen t link be t ween the two. SUMMARY C lear and significant improvements have been made i n the long range transpor t ation planning p ro cesses around the state and i n indi vidua l plan doc u ments. The p l an documents are hcuc.r organized, e:asicr t o read and significantly more descriptive. P u blic involvemen t and regional coordinatio n is dramatically i mp roved and the process is less reliant on modelin g and in clud es a w ider range of planning consider ations. W hi le d early i mproved additiona l e nhancem ents could .,m be made A series of suggestions ar e offered to e n hance the effectiveness and clarity of future long range transportatio n p l a nning in the sta t e. I n ligh t of the improvements a l read y made, MPOs will d ear!)' continue to increase the value o f Fl orida's regiona l l ong range uansportation planning practices 25


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.