role of metropolitan planning organizations in transportation planning
TRANSCRIPT
8/20/2019 Role of Metropolitan Planning Organizations in Transportation Planning
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/role-of-metropolitan-planning-organizations-in-transportation-planning 1/4
Role of Metropolitan Planning Organizations
in Transportation Planning
The Council of State Governments
CAPITOL RESEARCH
TRANSPORTATION POLICY
THE COUN CIL OF STATE GOVER NM ENTS
Metropolitan Planning Organizations,or MPOs, play an important role intransportation planning.• The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act of 1991, which authorized federal highway and
transit funding programs, significantly expanded
the role of MPOs in the transportation planning
process. Under the legislation, MPOs received
federal funding and state transportation officials
were required to coordinate with MPOs on project
prioritization for the first time.1
• Many MPOs are now responsible for influential
planning documents such as the Unified Planning
Work Program, which lists the planning studies
and tasks the MPO will perform to support the
planning process for a one- or two-year timeframe;
the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, which every
four or five years looks out 20 years to identify
future goals, strategies and projects; the Transpor-
tation Improvement Program, also known as the
Plan, which details transportation investmentsand strategies every four years; and the Public
Participation Plan, a periodic review of public
engagement strategies and goals.2
Not all MPOs are created equal.• The geographical areas MPOs serve vary widely
with the smallest covering 34 square miles and the
largest covering 38,649.3
• The population sizes MPOs serve also vary widely
with the smallest covering tens of thousands and
the largest covering more than 18 million individu-
als.4 Metropolitan transportation planning occurs
only in urbanized areas with a population of 50,000or greater.5
• Staffing also varies widely at MPOs with some
relying on as few as two employees—typically a
director and a transportation planner—and others
employing a staff of more than 100. A 2009 Gov-
ernment Accountability Office, or GAO, report
found that some MPOs lack the technical capac-
ity and data necessary to conduct the complex
transportation modeling required to meet planning
needs.6
• Analysts have noted that the powers of MPOs
often are limited simply to listing road projects and
don’t extend to the implementation of systematic,
strategic transportation planning. Many lack the
power to implement the transportation improve-
ment plans they recommend.7
• Some transportation policy experts say MPOs
should have the capacity to make choices as to the
benefits of projects regardless of mode, but many
lack the skills to carry out those kinds of analyses.8
• In addition, many MPOs don’t have sufficient
geographic reach to be able to have an impact on acohesive regional transportation plan.9
• The 2009 GAO report noted several proposals
developed by government and industry associa-
tions that could address some of the resource,
authority and technical challenges MPOs were
facing. GAO noted that greater flexibility in the
use of transportation planning funds could better
meet the needs of some metropolitan areas; that
varying the planning requirements and authority
8/20/2019 Role of Metropolitan Planning Organizations in Transportation Planning
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/role-of-metropolitan-planning-organizations-in-transportation-planning 2/42 THE COUNCI L OF STATE GOVER NMEN TS
or changing the legal definition of MPOs could
address disparities in capacity and planning; that
increasing federal investment in modeling and data
gathering could improve the technical capability
of MPOs and improve the consistency of travel
forecasting; and that making the planning process
more performance based could allow the Federal
Highway Administration and Federal Transit
Administration to assess the progress of MPOs in
achieving specific results more effectively.10
The 2012 federal surface transportationauthorization legislation known asMAP-21— Moving Ahead for Progressin the 21st Century—included somemodifications to the metropolitanplanning process.• The law required MPOs to establish and use a
performance-based approach to transportation
decision making and development of transporta-tion plans.11
• It required MPOs to establish performance targets
no later than 180 days after the date that state
or public transportation providers in their area
establish performance targets.12
• MAP-21 also said that within two years of enact-
ment of the law, the structure of all MPOs would
be required to include officials of public agencies
that administer or operate public transportation
systems.13
• The law placed a new emphasis on the importance
of nonmetropolitan transportation planning,
requiring the states to work more closely withnonmetropolitan areas and giving them the
opportunity to designate Regional Transportation
Planning Organizations to help address the needs
of those areas.14
Sean Slone, Director of Transportation & Infrastructure Policy,
REFERENCES1 National Transportation Library. “Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.” Accessedfrom:http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/istea.html 2 Federal Highway Administration. “The Transportation Planning Process Briefing Book.” Acces sed from:http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/publications/briefing_book/part01.cfm#Toc4209275673
Federal Highway Administration/Federal Transit Administration. “Transportation Planning CapacityBuilding: Planning for a Better Tomorrow: Metropolitan Planning Organization Database.” Accessed from:https://www.planning.dot.gov/mpo.asp4 Ibid.5 United States Code. “Title 23 – HIGHWAYS, Chapter 1 – Federal-Aid Highways, Section 134 – Metro-politan transportation planning.” Accessed from: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2013-title23/html/USCODE-2013-title23-chap1-sec134.htm 6 Government Accountability Office. “Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Options Exist to EnhanceTransportation Planning Capacity and Federal Oversight.” September 2009. Accessed from: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09868.pdf 7 William H. Hudnut III. “It’s Time to Wake Up the Sleeping Giants.” Citiwire.Net. July 31, 2009. Accessedfrom:http://citiwire.net/columns/its-time-to-wake-up-the-sleeping-giants/8 Sean Slone. “Transportation Policy Academy 2014 – DC – Part 3: Transportation Policy Roundtable.”Blog Post. September 24, 2014. Accessed from: goo.gl/bMIe2p
9 Ibid.10 Government Accountability Office.11 Federal Highway Administration. “MAP-21 – Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century.” Accessedfrom:https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/factsheets/mp.cfm12 Ibid.
13 Ibid.14 Federal Register. “Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning; Metropolitan Transporta-tion Planning: A Proposed Rule by the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal TransitAdministration.” June 2, 2014. Accessed from: goo.gl/r0cK9d15 Center for State Innovation. “5 Easy Pieces on Transportation: Metropolitan Planning OrganizationReform.” 2009. Accessed from: http://ssti.us/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/5ep-trans-mpo-ref.pdf 16 Emil Frankel. “Better Decisions in a Time of Scarce Resources.” American ActionForum. December 9, 2014. Accessed from: http://americanactionforum.org/research/better-decisions-in-a-time-of-scarce-resources 17 Sean Slone. “Transportation Policy Academy 2015 – DC – James Corless, Transportation for Americaand Jeff Davis & Emil Frankel, Eno Center for Transportation.” Blog Post. June 19, 2015. Accessed from:goo.gl/ais78U18 Sean Slone. “Transportation Policy Academy 2013 – DC – Part 7: Panel Discussion with Emil Frankel,Sarah Kline & Paul Feenstra.” Blog Post. November 6, 2013. Accessed from: goo.gl/cxHI1I
But some say additional metropolitanplanning process reforms are needed.• The Center for State Innovation in 2009 said
that most MPOs could benefit from reforms that
include giving them sufficient authority to guide
regional planning rather than simply approving
or vetoing local requests for federal funds and
establishing elected board members or population-proportional appointments.15
• In a 2014 report, Emil Frankel of the Eno Center
for Transportation recommended that Congress
incentivize states and MPOs to develop and
implement economic analyses of potential capital
projects rather than simply rejecting or accepting
state and metropolitan transportation investment
programs.16
• Frankel, who was assistant secretary for trans-
portation policy at the U.S. Department of
Transportation during the George W. Bush
administration and served as commissioner of
the Connecticut Department of Transportation inthe 1990s, said in 2015 that instead of more than
400 MPOs nationwide, the United States might
better be served if it had 100 or 125. Reducing
those numbers would require action at the state
level.17 Frankel contends that many MPOs are just
too small and don’t have the staff or the resources
to serve in anything other than a logrolling or
rubberstamping capacity. If transportation funding
is going to continue to be hard to come by at all
levels of government, Frankel said, enhancing
the expertise, reach and impact of MPOs will be
important in helping to ensure that the transpor-
tation investments made are the wisest for eachregion of the country and state governments will
have an important role to play in shaping the
future of MPOs.18
8/20/2019 Role of Metropolitan Planning Organizations in Transportation Planning
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/role-of-metropolitan-planning-organizations-in-transportation-planning 3/4 THE COUN CI L OF STATE GOV ERNMEN TS
NUMBER OF METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS
BY STATE WITH AREA AND POPULATION RANGES SERVED
State Number of MPOs Smallest Area
Served (Sq. Miles)
Largest Area
Served (Sq. Miles)
Smallest
Population Served
Largest Population
Served
Alabama1 14 219 1,934 86,857 853,551
Alaska 2 112 246 66,926 289,011
Arizona2 8 101 10,660 55,280 4,055,281
Arkansas3 8 121 1,836 42,214 621,397
California4
19 512 38,649 55,489 18,051,203Colorado 5 103 3,605 130,445 2,827,082
Connecticut 9 166 760 175,636 757,215
Delaware5 3 78 795 76,494 639,457
District of Columbia6 2 2,299 3,558 2,662,204 4,586,770
Florida7 27 175 5,118 134,331 2,492,108
Georgia8 16 106 4,573 70,695 4,819,026
Hawaii 2 613 730 142,829 952,502
Idaho9 5 43 1,312 52,535 550,359
Illinois10 15 99 4,586 58,000 8,444,660
Indiana11 14 79 2,619 68,479 1,518,800
Iowa12 9 36 772 59,824 753,949
Kansas13
5 189 2,167 87,305 1,895,535Kentucky14 9 460 2,619 86,444 1,981,230
Louisiana 9 175 1,805 99,316 1,057,709
Maine 4 84 481 20,761 200,369
Maryland15 7 78 3,558 58,875 4,586,770
Massachusetts 10 195 1,458 131,232 3,159,512
Michigan 13 201 4,608 87,959 4,703,593
Minnesota16 8 113 2,970 61,764 2,849,557
Mississippi17 4 229 1,595 97,272 1,077,697
Missouri18 8 110 4,586 59,448 2,571,253
Montana 3 80 223 68,620 126,372
Nebraska19 4 119 846 52,478 753,949
Nevada20
4 247 8,089 55,489 1,951,300New Hampshire 4 322 544 146,865 261,258
New Jersey21 3 1,738 4,409 594,419 6,579,801
New Mexico22 5 307 3,096 96,917 853,190
New York 14 125 2,726 66,322 12,367,508
North Carolina 18 154 1,600 56,746 1,098,657
North Dakota23 3 113 572 63,281 187,695
Ohio24 17 268 2,619 82,976 2,071,325
Oklahoma25 4 64 2,093 86,299 1,140,532
Oregon26 9 34 487 56,239 1,499,844
Pennsylvania27 22 325 7,110 101,407 5,626,318
Puerto Rico 3 408 1,653 316,151 2,241,853
Rhode Island 1 1,193 1,193 1,052,527 1,052,527South Carolina28 11 176 1,117 85,635 621,308
South Dakota29 3 222 478 105,538 187,553
Tennessee30 11 55 2,899 64,410 1,382,526
Texas31 25 117 9,448 86,793 6,417,630
Utah 4 118 1,777 98,960 1,561,348
Vermont 1 618 618 156,567 156,567
Virginia32 15 103 3,558 65,689 4,586,770
Washington33 12 36 6,384 52,535 3,690,866
West Virginia34 8 366 1,278 96,183 323,989
Wisconsin35 14 64 2,685 58,537 2,019,767
Wyoming 2 200 213 71,077 80,713
8/20/2019 Role of Metropolitan Planning Organizations in Transportation Planning
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/role-of-metropolitan-planning-organizations-in-transportation-planning 4/44 THE COUNCI L OF STATE GOVER NMEN TS
SOURCE: Federal Highway Administration/Federal Transit Administration. “Transportation Planning Capacity Building: Planning for a Better Tomorrow: Metropolitan Planning Organization Database.” Accessed
from: https://www.planning.dot.gov/mpo.asp .
Population totals are based on results of the 2010 Census, which identified 36 new urbanized areas that w ere required to either e stablish and staff a new MPO or me rge with an existing M PO.
NOTES:1 Two of Alabama’s MPOs also serve portions of Georgia or Fl orida.2 One Arizona MPO also serves a portion of California.3 Two of Arkansas’ MPOs also ser ve portions of Oklahoma or Texas.4 Two of California’s MPOs also serve por tions of Nevada or Arizona.5 Two of Delaware’s MPOs also serve portions of Maryland.6 DC’s MPOs also serve portions of Maryland or Virginia.7 One of Florida’s MPOs also ser ves a portion of Alabama.8 Three of Georgia’s MPOs also ser ve portions of Alabama, South Carolina or Tennessee.9 One of Idaho’s MPOs also serve s a portion of Washington.10 Four of Illinois’ MPOs also serve portions of Iowa, Missouri and/or Wisconsin.11 Three of Indiana’s MPOs also ser ve portions of Kentucky and/or Ohio.12 Four of Iowa’s MPOs also serve por tions of Illinois, Nebraska, Sout h Dakota and/or Wisconsin.13 One of Kansas’ MPOs also serves a portion of Missouri.14 Four of Kentucky’s MPOs also serve portions of Indiana, Ohio and/or Tennessee.15 Five of Maryland’s MPOs also serve portions of DC, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Virginia and/or West Virginia.16 Four of Minnesota’s MPOs also serve portions of North Dakota or Wisconsin.17 One of Mississippi’s MPOs also serves a portion of Tennessee.18 Two of Missouri’s MPOs also serve por tions of Illinois or Kansas.19 Two of Nebraska’s MPOs also serve port ions of Iowa and/or South Dakota.20 One of Nevada’s MPOs also serves a portion of California.21 One of New Jersey’s MPOs also serves a portion of Pennsylvania.22 One of New Mexico’s MPOs also serves a portion of Texas.23 Two of North Dakota’s MPOs also serve portions of Minnesota.24 Five of Ohio’s MPOs also ser ve portions of Indiana, Kentucky and/or West Virginia.25 One of Oklahoma’s MPOs also serves a portion of Arkansas.26 One of Oregon’s MPOs also serves a portion of Washington.27 Two of Pennsylvania’s MPOs also serve Mar yland, New Jerse y and/or West Virginia.28 One of South Carolina’s MPOs also serves a portion of Georgia.29 One of South Dakota’s MPOs also serves portions of Iowa and Nebraska.30 Five of Tennessee’s MPOs also serve portions of Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi or Virginia.31 Two of Texas’ MPOs also serve portions of Arkansas or New Mexico.32 Three of Virginia’s MPOs also serve portions of DC, Maryland or Tennessee.33 Two of Washington’s MPOs also serve portions of Idaho or Ore gon.34 Five of West Virginia’s MPOs also ser ve portions of Mary land, Ohio and/or Pennsylvania.35 Four of Wisconsin’s MPOs also ser ve portions of Illinois, Iowa and/or Minnesota.