|
Federal Transit Administration-Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Reviews - Planning Practice Under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 and the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990
Click HERE for graphic. ABSTRACT The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 have changed how Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOS) conduct transportation planning. This paper evaluates how UTOs and their planning partners are responding to the challenges and opportunities of these Acts, based on comprehensive reviews of transportation planning in nine metropolitan areas (1). The reviews by the Federal Transit and Federal Highway Administrations, with assistance from the Volpe Center, evaluate compliance with federal regulations and policies; and increasingly focus on responses to ISTEA and the CAAA as guidance evolves (2). The Acts expect MPOs to provide leadership in defining a regional vision, selecting projects, and improving air quality. To succeed, MTOs must overcome a period of diminished resources, technical capabilities, and institutional roles. Particularly in areas with severe air pollution, MPOs must work with other agencies to overcome institutional and technical barriers and identify affordable and politically supportable strategies that meet stringent air quality targets while accomplishing traditional transportation goals. Many MPOs approach ISTEA as a lever to overcome fragmentation and lead regions toward system-wide planning. To realize the promise of ISTEA and the CAAA, long range plans must become strategic, framing and evaluating financially realistic alternatives to guide elected officials and the public through the hard choices required to balance air quality and transportation concerns. Transportation improvement programs, which often consolidate decisions made outside the MPO-process, must demonstrate links to the long range plan and how projects are selected to accomplish regional objectives. Lyons Page 1 (The views expressed in this paper are those of the author alone and do not necessarily represent the policies of the Federal Transit Administration, Federal Highway Administration, or the U.S. Department 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, FHWA. Deborah Bums of the Federal 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 provides 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 Planning, 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 FTA and FHWA 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 formalized, 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 Lyons Page 2 basis for formal findings identifying necessary improvements to the planning process in each area issued in reports by the FTA and FHWA Regional Administrators. This paper analyzes some of the major trends 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. 2. BACKGROUND The independent planning reviews are being undertaken jointly by the FHWA and FTA to determine how successfully the urban transportation planning 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 passage of the ISTEA in December 1991. Under the Federal regulations in place prior to the ISTEA, metropolitan areas were required to apply a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive (3-C) transportation planning process. The process had to develop plans and programs which address transportation needs, and are consistent with overall planned development in the metropolitan area. The planning process also 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 grant increased responsibility for transportation planning to states and NPOS, and was a prerequisite for receiving federal funds for highway and mass transit projects. According to the joint planning regulations, self-certification did not relieve FHWA and FTA of oversight Lyons Page 3 responsibilities and the obligation to review and evaluate the planning process. The first objective of the independent planning reviews was to allow FHWA and FTA to fulfill these responsibilities to evaluate the planning process and the credibility of the self- certification. The ISTEA, which amended 23 U.S. C. and the Federal Transit Act, mandated fundamental changes to the metropolitan 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 include environmental and intermodal considerations, and provide a financially constrained 20-year vision of future transportation improvements; transportation improvement programs (TIPS) function as strategic management tools to accomplish the objectives of the plan. TEPs are to be prioritized, financially-constrained, and subjected to air quality conformity requirements in non- attainment areas; planning emphasize the efficiency and performance of the overall system; and develop strategies that consider the broad range of possible modes and their connectivity, and 15 diverse and comprehensive factors, including congestion management strategies, travel demand reduction, land use effects, and expansion of transit. The transition between pre- and post-ISTEA periods was smooth for the independent planning reviews. The reviews began with a broad interpretation 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 effectiveness of public participation. This focus anticipated many of the planning considerations Lyons Page 4 and requirements in the ISTEA. As the transportation planning requirements of the CAAA and ISTEA have evolved, the reviews have increasingly emphasized second and third objectives. Second, the reviews allow FHWA and FTA to assess the ability of the metropolitan planning processes to address the evolving requirements of the CAAA and ISTEA. And third, the reviews assist metropolitan areas to prepare for future federal certifications of the planning process, as required by ISTEA for metropolitan areas over 200,000 population. Areas that fail to receive certification will be sanctioned by having federal funds withheld, under circumstances discussed in the Final Rule. The planning reviews involve a federal team from FHWA Headquarters, Regional, and Division offices; FTA 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 transportation planning in each area, including MYOs, state Departments of Transportation, state and regional air quality agencies, public transit 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 weaknesses of the planning process and barriers 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 participants benefit from the opportunity to take a comprehensive view of the metropolitan Lyons Page 5 transportation system, and to discuss concerns, problems, and solutions. Candor is encouraged because the assessments are not certification reviews. And because each area's planning 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 FTA and FHWA Regional Administrators. The fourth objective of the planning reviews is to identify and analyze national trends in metropolitan planning under the CAAA and ISTEA. This paper represents the initial effort to perform cross- cutting analysis by synthesizing findings from the reviews completed to date, summarized in Table 1. 3. SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS This paper provides insights into current planning practices and the gap between this status quo and important expectations of the ISTEA and CAAA. The analysis focuses on five important aspects of metropolitan transportation planning, contrasting what the federal team looked for in good planning practice as defined by the joint planning requirements, and later by the two Acts, to what it found in practice. The status quo and the expected characteristics of the planning process under the ISTEA and CAAA can be considered as two ends of a spectrum. Figure 1 describes a spectrum of planning practice in the five areas considered in this paper. At one end, the status quo is based on generalized 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 William M. Lyons TABLE 1 INDEPENDENT PLANNING REVIEWS Date of Site Visit Kansas City 1991 Chicago 1991 Los Angeles 1991 Pittsburgh 1991 Houston 1992 Twin Cities 1992 Portland 1992 Sacramento 1993 Denver 1993 William M. Lyons FIGURE I SPECTRUM OF PLANNING PRACTICE Aspect Status Quo ISTEA/CAAA GOALS 1.General MPO role Removed from Broker, leader, major decisions consensus builder 2.Long range plan Single scenario Alternative scenarios Multi-modal and inter- modal. Focus on system performance. Incorporates 15 factors. 3.Links between Not clearly Clearly established. Plan and TIP established. TIP - strategic management tool. 4.Fiscally No Yes constrained Plan/ TIP 5.Public role Participation Limited -- e.g., Actively encouraged. hearings on Early and substantive Plan/TIP. Representation Limited Broad - public/private sector, citizens Lyons Page 6 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 processes 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. 3.1 MPO Roles and Responsibilities Expectations The federal team looked for collaborative and well-coordinated working relationships between the MPO and other agencies involved in regionally significant transportation planning in each metropolitan area. In most cases this includes city or county planning groups, state DOTs, transit operators, or other MPOs servicing the same area. In air quality non-attainment areas, state or regional air quality management agencies often play major roles in transportation planning. Beyond collaborative working relationships, the ISTEA and CAAA clearly expect the MPO to play a pivotal role in metropolitan planning, whether as a leader, manager, or builder of consensus among other agencies that can have different perspectives and priorities. The planning process should be a disciplined and structured effort that is the basis for programming Lyons Page 7 of investments, and not a paper exercise to meet Federal requirements, largely disconnected from important transportation decisions. The CAAA and ISTEA leave many of the details of the working relationships between the MPO and the other agencies to local negotiation. The Acts, however, mandate significant responsibilities for MPOs, including: air quality conformity determinations for the plan and the TIP; development of a multi- modal and financially constrained plan, with a realistic long range vision; working cooperatively with the state and transit operators to develop a financially constrained and prioritized TIP; and selection of all projects for the TIP (except for National Highway System, bridge, interstate maintenance, and Federal Land Highway programs), in consultation with the state and transit operators in areas with a population of over 200,000. Observations The MPOs in the Twin Cities and Portland clearly play roles as consensus builders and successfully coordinate planning processes that influence the long term direction of their areas, and guide the programming of transportation investments. Both MPOs appear to be in strong positions to modify their planning processes to meet the requirements of the ISTEA and CAAA. It is important to note that both of these MPOs have broad powers under state statutes that predate ISTEA, and have a history of regional leadership. In the Twin Cities, Metro Council is authorized by state statute to prepare and adopt a comprehensive development guide consisting of policy statements, goals, standards, programs, and maps prescribing the orderly economic development of the metropolitan 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 the 3-C process and Lyons Page 8 functions as a forum for cooperative decision-making by local elected officials, citizens and major transportation agencies. The TAB assigns funding priorities and adopt programs, which can be approved or disapproved by the Council. The Twin Cities' long range transportation plan anticipated important emphases of the ISTEA. The plan was oriented toward maintenance of the region's existing transportation system and achievement of system efficiencies by making 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 broadly 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 implantation 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 sole responsibility for project selection, and all projects must be include dint he long range transportation plan. The MPO is leading a process to revise the long range planning 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 states or transit operators, which discouraged consideration of the extent to which these investments accomplish 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. Lyons Page 9 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 planning. 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 make program decisions, but out of necessity their major concerns may be operational and financial--to meet farebox recovery requirements, reduce deficits, or eliminate inefficient service. For transit 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 transit, highway, or transportation control measures. In one example, a transit operator's plans resulted in construction of a reserved busway without 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 pollution benefits. In anther case, sub-allocations 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, transit operators, and in the case of the California areas, from county transportation commissions. For California MPOs, this is encouraged by state planning requirements that define similar responsibilities for country commissions to those defined for MPOs by the ISTEA. This general approach, where the MPOs receive inputs for the TIP that are prioritized and financially constrained outside the overall planning process, inconsistent with the ISTEA, Lyons Page 10 which requires development of prioritized and financially constrained area-wide long range plans and programs. At it 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 allocate 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 determine procedures for redistributing the flexible funds in the ISTEA programs. The Work Group proposed roles and responsibility for the Minnesota DOT (MnDOT) to plan 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 land miles, or gas tax revenue generation as the basis for allocation of Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds by the stat to regions. The Work Group took a strong position against formula-based suballocation of flexible funds within the region to jurisdictions or to modes. In Sacramento, the MPO had developed flexible STP guidelines which will allow selection of projects that meet the travel demand needs identified during the planning process. The STP guidelines were developed through a committee 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 Lyons Page 11 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 Congestion 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 transfers to finance a range of transportation projects based on projections of revenues, need, readiness, and eligibility. 3.2 Development of Scenarios in Long Range 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 years, including demographics, availability of resources, and the condition of transportation infrastructure. While the plan can encourage innovative thinking in future directions, it should also move the area toward a realistic single future vision by consensus of decision-makers and the broad public. The future will ultimately be defined in terms of a preferred 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 supports the selected alternative should be clear. Preferably the plan will define and evaluate several distinct alternatives in terms of broad costs and benefits, and the ability to accomplish clearly stated area-wide goals. Identification and evaluation of alternative scenarios in the long range plan are important means of demonstrating the complex trade- offs involved when limited resources are applied to Lyons Page 12 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 non-attainment 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 selected set of projects in the TIP; instead, the TIP should be a means to justify a previously selected set of projects in the TIP; instead, the TIP should be a carefully selected and prioritized set of projects to implement long 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 consolidations of sub-regional or single mode plans, although these efforts should be consistent and compatible with the long range 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 15 factors throughout the planning process, and in the products of the process, including the long range plan and the TIP. The 15 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 range of strategies in the plan. If the selected alternative did not reflect broad strategies, the plan 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 range planning that indicted the ability to adapt to the ISTEA requirements. Observations Lyons Page 13 The plan developed by SCAG, the MPO for the Los Angeles metropolitan area, provided an excellent example of how a set of clear alternatives can be presented in terms of costs and benefits, including reduction of vehicle miles travelled and air pollution. This approach can encourage understanding of the unavoidable trade- offs between strategies to meet air quality, mobility and other targets. For Los Angeles, the only metropolitan area in the extreme non-attainment class for ozone, evaluation and selection of cost- effective strategies to reach attainment should dominate the planning process. The scenarios developed by SCAG encouraged decision-makers to focus on what results will be required from specific strategies, including significant growth in transit, reduced trips through telecommuting, and improved jobs-housing balance to 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 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 strategies. After evaluation of the different options using performance criteria, the MPO staff concluded that the mobility option that combined the different elements performed 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 strategy for the area, with Lyons Page 14 complete descriptions of the transportation 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 planning process. The emphasis was on moving ahead with programming, rather than on demonstrating the analysis that led to the selected long term alternative. In Chicago, the 1989 long range plan adopted by the MPO identified the choices that must be made between travel modes such as automobiles and transit, and between different transit providers competing for different 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 at approaches to land use. The plan for Houston included different transportation options, but two of the options focused on roadway improvement with minimal consideration of transit or other measures the region might consider to comply with the CAAA and ISTEA. Denver is revising its long range plan in accordance with ISTEA. The revised plan will be fiscally constrained 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. 3.3 Clear Linkages Between The Long Range Plan and the TIP Lyons Page 15 Expectations The federal teams looked for clear and substantial connections between the strategic direction set in the plan and the short term 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 general 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 central mechanism 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". Observations The Twin Cities and Portland metropolitan areas provided clear demonstration 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 submit projects for evaluation by the Technical Advisory Board and the MPO. The process ensured that Lyons Page 16 the TIP reflects the region's priorities 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, described 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 selection is modified to ensure compliance with multi-modal and efficiency criteria of the ISTEA, the MPO will require that local and special district projects include a statement of consistency with the RTP. IN the Los Angeles area, the TIP reflected the separately determined short-range plans of the region's transit providers, the county commissions, and Caltrans. Limited links to the regional mobility plan and its goals were developed. In another area, the MPO had the authority to approve and disapprove TIP projects proposed by implementing agencies, but this authority appeared to be exercised primarily when projects exceeded funding constraints. Thus, implementors were not forced to view how their projects fit in to the over regional "big picture". Project rankings and selection were primarily determined by the implementors. The documentation of the planning basis for many of the projects in the Kansas city TIP was not strongly developed. Links between TIP projects and the long and short-range elements Lyons Page 17 of the plan, or connection to explicit regional objectives for energy conservation and improved air quality were not clearly documented. One area did not clearly establish a regional planning process as the guiding mechanism for selecting the projects in its TIP. Long term regional criteria and objectives identified by the MPO did not necessarily determine the contents of the TIP. Projects were included based on negotiations between elected officials And implementing modes. For example, the state DOT and the toll road authority appeared to make highway fund decisions and transit operators appeared to make transit fund decisions based primarily on their own criteria and objectives. 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 1995 was developed using their process. 3.4 Long Range Plan and TIPs Must be Financially Constrained Expectations The plan should not be a "wish list" with unfunded projects. An unconstrained plan avoids controversy be including projects from all constituents, but lacks the discipline necessary to guide a metropolitan area toward programming scarce resources to solve combinations of air quality, mobility, growth or other pressing 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 transportation Lyons Page 18 systems for the metropolitan area. If 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. The ISTEA requires that plans be financially constrained over a 20 year time horizon, comparing existing and proposed revenues to costs of constructing and operating the planned system. TIPs and plans must be financially constrained and prioritized; over- programming is not allowed. For non-attainment areas, financial constraint is the key link between the CAAA and ISTEA, with requirements 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 prioritization in their plans or TIPs. Most of the MPOs, however, indicated that in response to the ISTEA they expected to incorporate these difficult but crucial dimensions in their next plans And TiPs. At an aggregate level he Los Angeles plan identified shortfalls, although the plan and its long-range projects were not resource constrained. It assumed that the resources required would be provided by the political process to reach specified goals. The 1992 update was intended to develop more stringent funding criteria and to apply them to general initiatives. This will be important to determine conformity with the State Implementation Plan (SiP) and to meet other ISTEA requirements. The Los Angeles MPO assessed TIPs prepared by Caltrans, counties, and transit agencies, which were prioritized for consistency with the mobility plan, for conformity with transportation control measures in the SIP, and to assure priority of HOV over mixed flow lanes. County TIPs Lyons Page 19 must be constrained by the funds available. The transit agencies consistently faced funding shortfalls for TIP implementation. Chicago's long range transportation plan proposed maintenance and expansion that will cost $25 billion through 2010, but its optimistic funding availability forecast fell short of providing required revenues, and its pessimistic forecast fell very short. Shortfalls could be substantial enough to require reconsideration of basic transportation and land 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 projects by implementing agencies, as discussed above. The TIPs for the Pittsburgh and Houston areas 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 50 percent over-programmed, and in the 1992 fiscal year less than half of the programmed projects were implemented. Despite an explicit priority for fiscal restraint in the Twin Cities, the proposed level of highway and transit activity in the plan appeared to be highly optimistic. Metro Council estimated a shortfall as high as $2.1 billion by 2010 for metropolitan highway system improvements, reflecting projection of a significant reduction in state transportation expenditures. To support transit operating costs and construction of three light rail lines, an additional approximately $1.3 billion was required for the planning period. The Twin Cities plan attempted to preserve the existing level of regional mobility through the year 2010 while minimizing expenditures. Metro Council recognized national and local Lyons Page 20 economic and financial pressures, and attempted to balance mobility and maintenance of quality of life with limited long term funding. The Council's Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework emphasized careful management of regional resources by placing the highest investment priority on servicing 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 projects listed. During its development, the proposed program in the current TIP was determined to cost more than available funding allows. The MPO worked with The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to equalize costs and funding. Projects dropped from the TIP due to insufficient funds were maintained in the plan for later consideration. The Sacramento plan was significantly under-funded. Even though different options for financing the shortfall were explored in the plan, the region was struggling to identify new revenue sources that would be publicly and politically acceptable. The lack 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 transportation investment, although revenue estimated projects 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, to meet the ISTEA deadline. The MPO also intended to produce a 2020 plan that will respond to other ISTEA requirements. 3.5 Public Participation Lyons Page 21 Expectations The teams looked for demonstration of substantial public participation, with "public" broadly defined to include a range of public agencies, citizens and advocacy groups, and the private sector. A public participation process that relies primarily on formal public hearings to assess drafts of plans, TIPs, or other planning products was considered inadequate. The preferred approach--which encourages early involvement in identifying long- and short-range strategies, in the 3-C process down to the corridor of project level, and in programming -- is an ideal that is difficult to accomplish. The public is likely to react to decisions that seem to directly affect them, but to have difficulty inventing the time necessary to become involved in the complexities of long- range planning. Ideally, planning staff will assist the public to participate throughout the technical planning process. Broad public involvement is crucial to building the political consensus necessary to support controversial transportation decisions, including those required for severe non-attainment areas to meet air quaLity goals. The ISTEA Rule requires "a proactive public involvement process", including access to complete technical and policy information, timely notices, full access to key decisions, and support for early and continuing involvement in plan and TIP development. Observations For several of the areas, public participation could be more formally expanded to improve representation throughout the planning process of groups such as large employers; labor, employer, and development associations; environmental organizations; and minority groups. In Los Angeles, SCAG had a Regional Advisory Council of 50 members drawn from business, church groups, and universities to make recommendations to the Executive Committee Lyons Page 22 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 on which private citizens sat. SCAG did feel that additional efforts were required to evaluate the impact of transportation planning the citizenry at large. The county transportation commissions and transit operators maintained their own outreach programs. For the Chicago area, the major source of citizen input to the CATS transportation planning process, including development of the long- range plan and TIP, was indirect, through the local elected officials who served on the Policy Committee. Public concerns, including requests for information 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 transportation 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 transportation and land use options within the urban core, the MPO held twelve public meetings. The Houston MPO provided an effective means, through membership on sub-committees, for citizens, representatives of environmental action groups, and private transit operators to participate in the planning process. The Twin Cities has a strong tradition of citizen participation, encouraged by controversies Lyons Page 23 over highway construction, the transfer of interstate highway funds, airport noise, large scale real estate developments, and proposed light rail construction. This tradition was enhanced by the Metro Council, the RTB and MnDOTs commitments to actively recruiting citizens for their Advisory committees. To involve the general public in the planning, development and implementation of regional 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. Public participation in Portland occurred through citizens advisory committees for all corridor studies, public meetings to update the plan process, and citizen membership on the Transportation Policy Alternatives Committee (TPAC). Metro appointed six citizens as TPAC representatives. According to Metro, the general public was not easily attracted to planning activities, and citizen input came late in the process to update the last plan, 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 developing a vision for the Portland region. The seventeen members of the Metro 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 operator, the Port of Portland, ODOT, and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. After passage of the ISTEA, the Sacramento MPO took steps to enhance citizen participation in the planning process. This consisted of three different sub-regional groups to represent local concerns, which report to the 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. Lyons Page 24 The Denver MPO provides a variety of opportunities for citizen participation. Plans, TIPs, and other planning products are presented before 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 meetings 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. 4. CONCLUSION MPOs are now expected to exercise leadership in defining a regional vision for the future, in selecting 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 metropolitan areas with severe air pollution, MPOs also must overcome institutional and technical barriers and work with other regional agencies to identify affordable and politically supportable mixes 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 modes air pollution, some MPOs welcome the 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 the ISTEA and CAAA is to be realized. Most long-range 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 Lyons Page 25 public through the technical and political trade-offs and hard choices that are unavoidable if air quality And transportation concerns are to be balances. 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 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 fifteen ISTEA factors. Lyons Page 26 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author acknowledges the insights and comments of the federal review team members who participated in then independent planning reviews conducted to date. In particular, he acknowledges the contributions of Deborah Burns, the Program Manager, Samuel Zimmerman, and Robert Kirkand of the FTA Office of Planning; Brian Sterman of the FTA Region II Office; Barna Juhasz and Dean Smeins of the FHWA Metropolitan Planning Division; and Michael Jacobs, Paul Shadle, Terrence Smith, Beth Deysher, And Robert Brodesky of the Volepe Center. REFERENCES 1. W. M. Lyons,et al. Review of the Transportation Planning Process in the Kansas City, Chicago, Southern California, Pittsburgh, Houston and Twin Cities Metropolitan Areas, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, RSPA, U.S. Department of Transportation, RSPA/VNTSC-SS-TM392-01 to -06, 1991-1993. 2. "Interim Guidance on the ISTEA Metropolitan Planning Requirements", FTA and FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, April 6, 1992. Federal Register, 23 CFR Part 450 and 49 CFR Part 613, "Metropolitan Planning", "Statewide Transportation Planning", And "Management and Monitoring Systems", Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, March 2, 1993. Lyons Page 27 Federal Register, 23 CFR Parts 450 and 49 CFR Part 613, "Statewide Planning; Metropolitan Planning", Final Rule, October 28, 1993. Federal Register, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93, "Air Quality: Transportation Plans, Programs, and Projects; Federal or State Implementation Plan Conformity", Final Rule, November 24, 1993. Federal Register, 23 CFR Parts 500 and 626 and 49 CFR Part 614, "Management and Monitoring Systems", Interim Final Rule, December 1, 1993.
