Members 

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations 

May 1995 

Private Citizens 

Mary Ellen Joyce, Arlington, Virginia 

Richard P. Nathan, Albany, New York 

William F. Winter, Chairman, Jackson, Mississippi 

Members of the U.S. Senate 

Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota 

Bob Graham, Florida 

Dirk Kempthorne, Idaho 

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives 

James P. Moran, Virginia 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Steven H. Schiff, New Mexico 

Officers of the Executive Branch, U.S. Government 

Carol M. Browner, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency 

Marcia L. Hale, Assistant to the President and Director of Intergovernmental Affairs 

Richard W. Riley, Secretary of Education 

Governors 

Arne H. Carlson, Minnesota 

Howard Dean, Vermont 

Michael 0. Leavitt, Utah 

Robert J. Miller, Nevada 

Mayors 

Victor H. Ashe, Knoxville, Tennessee 

Robert M. Isaac, Colorado Springs, Colorado 

Edward G. Rendell, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

Bruce Todd, Austin, Texas 

Members of State Legislatures 

Paul Bud Burke, President, Kansas Senate 

Art Hamilton, Minority Leader, Arizona House of Representatives 

Samuel B. Nunez, Jr., President, Louisiana Senate 

Elected County Officials 

Gloria Molina, Los Angeles County, California, Board of Supervisors 

John H. Stroger Jr., Cook County, Illinois, Commission 

Vacancy 
.,> 'I -: . ! 

. .. .. 

MPO CAPACIW 

Improvintg the Capaciw 

of Metropofitan Planning Organizations 

to Help lmpfement 

Nationaf Transportation Poficies 

,.- 

U.S. Advisory Commisslon 

on Intergovernmental Relations 

A Commission Report 

May 1995 A- 1 30 
U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations 

800 K Street, NW, Suite 450 South Building 

Washington, DC 20575 

Phone: (202) 653-5540 

Fax: (202) 653-5429 

11 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Eflciency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) created important new 

roles for the nation’s 339 officially recognized metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). MPOs 

are responsible for the transportation planning 

required to keep their regions eligible for federal 

highway, transit, and surface transportation funds. 

This new-found importance, however, came at a 

time when many MPOs had fewer capacities than 

needed to perform their planning functions, and 

when it was difficult for them to expand. 

In 1993, the Federal Highway Administration 

asked ACIR to study MPOs to show how current 

practices can be brought into closer alignment with 

ISTEA expectations. 

The study addresses the question of MPO 

capacity. It begins with the hypothesis that many, 

if not all, of the MPOs need help in fulfilling the 

expectations of ISTEA, and outlines their initial 

experiences in seeking to comply with the law. 

ACIR also reports new field work on 18 

MPOs serving 12 metropolitan areas of differing 

sizes and circumstances. 

ISTEA brought three new, far-reaching 

philosophies to the administration of federal surface transportation programs: 

1. Decentralization of decisionmaking to 

the state and local governments, and particularly to the MPOs in the larger metropolitan areas of 200,000 population or more; 

2. Stronger environmental connections, 

especially to the Clean Air Act; and 

3. Elevation of nontraditional goals and 

stakeholders to new prominence in the 

planning and decisionmaking processes. 

ISTEA greatly expanded the responsibilities 

1. The MPO organization must be more 

inclusive and linked more strongly with 

other organizations and the public. 

of MPOs in three fundamental respects: 

2. The MPO planning process must be considerably broader in scope, fully intermodal, more advanced technologically, 

more outcome oriented, and more open to 

interaction with decisionmakers and affected parties. 

3.A new implementation role is established for MPOs that are designated as 

Transportation Management Areas. These 

MPOs (about 137 of them, mostly with 

populations over 200,000) will determine 

how to spend about 20 percent of ISTEA 

funds, making them more responsible for 

planning results (outcomes). They must be 

federally certified every three years. 

For each of these topics, the interviewers 

1. What had changed because of ISTEA? 

2. What difficulties were being encountered 

in complying with ISTEA? 

3. What kinds of assistance would be most 

helpful in improving the response to 

ISTEA? 

asked: 

Based on its field work, ACIR found that: 

Metropolitan planning organizations are 

not all alike, and they should not be expected to perform alike. 

rn Most MPOs are not governments and do 

not exercise clear lines of authority. 

w ISTEA has placed new pressures on MPOs 

to (1 ) review and/or change their structures; (2) produce more comprehensive, 

more thoroughly developed, and more realistic plans; (3) speed up their planning 

processes; and (4) take on a stronger political decisionmaking role. 

Many MPOs have responded positively to 

the new ISTEA requirements, but believe 

(1) the ISTEA goals will be difficult to 

iii 
achieve in the short run and (2) the expectations are too complex and burdensome. 

Many MPOs have responded positively to 

the new ISTEA requirements, but believe 

(1) the ISTEA goals will be difficult to 

achieve in the short run and (2) the expectations are too complex and burdensome. 

MPOs recognize that they need help with: 

intergovernmental coordination; data and 

quantitative analysis; planning strategies 

and methods; the funding process; public 

involvement; financially constraining their 

plans and transportation improvement programs (TIPs); implementation techniques; 

and prioritizing projects in the TIPs. 

More capacity-building assistance appears 

to be available than is being delivered 

effectively to many of the MPOs. 

MPOs now get, or expect to get, the help 

they need largely from the federal and state 

governments. 

The U.S. DOT field presence is not as supportive as MPOs would like it to be. 

Significant gaps exist in the knowledge 

needed to implement ISTEA effectively, 

efficiently, and equitably. 

Create a common understanding among all 

the partners about what ISTEA requires in 

a practical working sense. 

H Create a closer, more trusting working 

relationship among all the partners in the 

MPO process. 

To implement this conclusion, ACIR makes 

w The U.S. Department of Transportation 

(U.S. DOT) should establish a more comprehensive capacity-building program for 

metropolitan planning organizations. 

U.S. DOT should consider reorganizing its 

training, research, and field units to enable 

it to deliver a more unified, coherent, effective, and efficient capacity-building program. 

w U.S. DOT should couple its MPO capacity-building program with a program to 

reduce regulatory burdens on the MPOs 

and their partners in the cooperative transportation planning process. 

w U.S. DOT should support a mediation, 

conciliation, and peer-review service. 

w The state DOTS should be active partners 

with the federal government in helping to 

the following recommendations. 

strengthen the capacity of MPOs. 

MPOs-in cooperation with all their partners-should do everything they can to 

strengthen their own capacities to respond 

to the goals of ISTEA. 

Considering all these findings together, ACIR 

concludes that efforts to improve the capacity of 

MPOs to perform their ISTEA tasks should be built 

around three interrelated principles: 

Educate more than regulate. 

iv 
PREFACE 

Enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Eflciency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) ushered 

in expectations for improved metropolitan transportation planning and decisionmaking. As with 

many new federal programs, the expectations 

appeared to be outrunning the results of current 

practice. 

ACIR has addressed the topic of metropolitan 

planning many times over the past 35 years. In the 

1960s, the Commission emphasized issues stemming from suburbanization, metropolitan development, and urban problems. To help the local 

governments in metropolitan areas deal with these 

challenges, ACIR recommended federal assistance 

for comprehensive planning, coordination of federal aid, advance federal approval of interstate compacts, and intergovernmental reviews and 

comments for federal decisions coordinated 

through metropolitan clearinghouses. 

In the 1970~~ ACIR’s work contributed to 

widespread establishment and operation of regional 

organizations, increased use of interstate compacts, 

and use of areawide transportation planning and 

decisionmaking mechanisms in conjunction with 

the creation of state departments of transportation. 

ACIR reexamined metropolitan transportation planning, institutions, and services in the mid1980s for the U.S. Urban Mass Transportation 

Administration (UMTA). 

In 1993, the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) asked ACIR to study metropolitan transportation planning organizations (MPOs) to show 

how current practices can be brought into closer 

alignment with ISTEA expectations. ACIR’s experience positioned the Commission well to revisit 

some of its longstanding policy interests while 

assisting the U.S. Department of Transportation 

with one of its most significant intergovernmental 

responsibilities. 

The findings of ACIR’s field work and the 

Commission’s recommendations point toward a 

strengthening of the intergovernmental partnership 

for delivering improved transportation services in 

the nation’s metropolitan areas. 

William F. Winter 

Chairman 

V 
vi 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

This report was prepared by Bruce D. 

McDowell, ACIR Director of Government Policy 

Research. Richard Braun of RPB Inc., Charles 

Griffiths of ACIR, Richard Hartman, consultant, 

Robert Johns of the University of Minnesota, and 

Bruce McDowell did the field research presented in 

Chapter 3. Charles Griffiths, Laura Pennycuff, and 

Sandra Pinel of ACIR provided research support. 

ACIR would like to thank the following individuals for their comments and suggestions on the 

report: 

Pat Atkins, National Association of Regional 

Councils; John Bosley, National Association of 

Regional Councils; Cindy Burbank, Federal Highway Administration; Christina Casgar, Transportation Research Board; Russell Cate, International 

City/County Management Association; Dave 

Clawson, American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials; Hank Dittmar, Surface Transportation Policy Project; Sheldon Edner, 

Federal Highway Administration; Robert Gage, 

University of Colorado; Wendy Gasteiger, Federal 

Highway Administration; Jonathon Gifford, 

George Mason University; Jim Gosnell, Southern 

California Association of Governments; Kevin 

Heanue, Federal Highway Administration; Sue 

Higgins, Macatawa Area Coordinating Council; 

Julie Hoover, Parsons Brinkerhoff; James Hoben, 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Gloria Jefj Federal Highway Administration; Barna Juhasz, Federal Highway 

Administration; Bill Klein, American Planning 

Association; Nora Lake, Miami Valley Regional 

Planning Commission; Terry Lathrop, City of 

Charlotte, NC; Steve Lockwood, Parsons Brinkerhoe Tom Mason, Cheyenne Area Transportation 

Planning Process; Jim McKenzie, Metroplan; Janet 

Oakley, National Association of Regional Councils; Marion Poole, North Carolina Department of 

Transportation; John Poorman, Capital District 

Transportation Committee; Doug Porter, Growth 

Management Institute; Laura Rice, North Carolina 

Department of Transportation; Carlos Rodriguez, 

Federal Highway Administration; Raymond Ruggieri, New York Metropolitan Transportation 

Council; James Scott, Transportation Research 

Board; Dean Smeins, Federal Highway Administration; Les Sterman, East- West Gateway Coordinating Council; Paul Verchinski, Federal Transit 

Administration; Ed Weiner, Office of the U.S. Secretary of Transportation; Samuel Zimrnerman, Federal Transit Administration. 

Special thanks go to Sheldon Edner, project 

manager at the Federal Highway Administration. 

Thanks also go to James Scott at the Transportation 

Research Board for hosting the Critics’ and 

Thinkers’ Sessions. Samuel Zimmerman at the 

Federal Transit Administration made FTA a full 

partner in the field work and report review phases 

of the study. 

William E. Davis III 

Executive Director 

vii 
... 

Vlll 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Findings and Recommendations ....................................................... 1 

Recommendation 1 A Comprehensive MPO Capacity-Building Program .................... 7 

Recommendation 2 Supportive U.S. DOT Reorganizations ............................... 9 

Recommendation 3 Regulatory Relief for MPOs ....................................... 10 

Recommendation 4 An ISTEA Mediation, Conciliation, and Peer-Review Service ............ 11 

Recommendation 5 State DOT Roles in MPO Capacity-Building ......................... 13 

Recommendation 6 MPO Responsibility for Capacity-Building ........................... 14 

CHAPTER 1 Assisting Metropolitan Planning Organizations to Implement ISTEA ......... 15 

Purpose of this Study ............................................................ 15 

New Expectations for MPOs under ISTEA ........................................... 15 

MPOCapaci ty ............................................................... 16 

Ambiguities ................................................................. 16 

Dialogues .................................................................. 17 

Surveys .................................................................... 20 

Research Studies ............................................................. 24 

Available Assistance .......................................................... 26 

Questions for Field Research ................................................... 29 

CHAPTER 2 l"0s Are Not All Alike ............................................... 33 

The Universe of MPOs .......................................................... 33 

Number, Size. and Shape of MPOs ............................................... 33 

Practical Considerations ....................................................... 34 

TheSampleofMPOs ........................................................... 38 

Legal Authority ............................................................. -34 

CHAPTER 3 The Capacity-Building Needs of MPOs: Observations from the Field .......... 43 

Changes in MPO Programs ....................................................... 43 

Public Involvement .......................................................... -43 

Air Quality ................................................................ -43 

Intergovernmental Coordination ................................................. 44 

MPO/SDOT Relations ........................................................ 44 

Intermodal Planning .......................................................... 44 

Long-Range Planning ......................................................... 44 

Conclusion ................................................................. 44 

ix 
Difficulties Encountered by MPOs ................................................. 44 

Regulatory and Workload Burdens ............................................... 44 

Unachievable Expectations ..................................................... 45 

Uncoordinated Deadlines ...................................................... 45 

Disrupted Relationships within the MPO .......................................... 45 

Strained Relationships with the State DOT ........................................ 45 

Types of Help Requested by MpOs ................................................. 45 

Intergovernmental Coordination ................................................. 48 

Data and Quantitative Analysis ................................................. SO 

Planning Strategies and Methods ................................................ 50 

TheFundingProcess .......................................................... 51 

Public Involvement ........................................................... 51 

Financially Constraining the Plans and TIPS ....................................... 51 

Implementation Techniques .................................................... 51 

Prioritizing Projects in the TIPS ................................................. 52 

Type of MPO Affects Help Requested .............................................. 52 

Sources of Help for MPOs ....................................................... 52 

Federal ..................................................................... 52 

State ....................................................................... 53 

OtherMPOs ................................................................ 53 

Other Sources of Help ......................................................... 54 

APPENDMA ..................................................................... 56 

APPENDMB ..................................................................... 59 

X 
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

March 24,1995 

FINDINGS 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are not all alike, and they should ' not be expected to perform alike. 

Some are large; some are small. 

Some have significant technical and political independence 

from the state Department of Transportation (SDOT); some 

are largely dependent on the SDOT. 

Some are old and well established; some are new and still 

finding their way. 

Some cross state lines; some do not. 

Some are in areas with multiple MPOs; some serve the 

whole area. 

Some have serious air quality and congestion problems; 

some do not. 

Some are in growing areas; some are in stable or declining 

areas. 

All of these differences significantly affect: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

The difficulty of the MPOs' tasks; 

The ability of MPOs to meet the expectations placed 

on them by ISTEA; and 

The variety of forms of assistance needed by the 

MPOs. 

1 
321 Most MPOs are not governments and do not exercise clear lines of authority. 

MPOs are complex intergovernmental processes that often 

consist of several separate power centers that are loosely 

related to each other. Often, there are intergovernmental 

policy differences within the MPO that make it difficult for 

the organization to act with a single voice. With strong local 

governments and one or more strong SDOTs interacting, 

the process is difficult to manage. In most transportation 

activities, the SDOT has been, and often still is the predominant actor. Although the Intermodal Surface Transportation Eficiency Act of1991 (ISTEA) envisions a more equal 

position for MPOs in the transportation partnership, it may 

be a long time coming in some cases. Supportive partnersincluding a supportive SDOT-are essential to the success 

of the MPO. 

ISTEA has placed new pressures on MPOs to (1) review and/or change their ' structures; (2) produce more comprehensive, more thoroughly developed, and 

more realistic plans; (3) speed up their planning processes; and (4) take on a 

stronger political decisionmaking role. 

It is not simple to achieve these goals. ISTEA expanded the 

transportation partnership in several ways: intergovernmentally, modally, geographically, and with customers and 

affected parties. The MPO planning process is relied on to 

bring the parties together to resolve their differences and 

create harmony around a new set of broader goals. However, the partners in the new process are not yet comfortable 

with each other or with the expanded ISTEA goals. In addition, many of the partners find that the changes are stressful, and the amount of help is inadequate. 

Many MPOs have responded positively to the new ISTEA requirements, but 

believe (1) the ISTEA goals will be difficult to achieve in the short run and (2) the 

expectations are too complex and burdensome. 

There is too much to do all at once and too little flexibility 

perceived in the requirements. All the MPOs must meet 

approximately the same deadlines regardless of current 

staffing, starting points, or political situations. Most MPOs 

2 
have changed their programs to give greater attention to 

public involvement, air quality issues, intergovernmental 

coordination, relationships with the SDOT, intermodal 

planning, and long-range planning. 

MPOs also have run into difficulties with regulatory and 

workload burdens, very high expectations, uncoordinated 

analytical procedures and deadlines, and problematic relationships with the SDOT. There is perceived duplication 

among the requirements for long-range planning, the six 

management systems, major investment studies, NEPA 

environmental analysis, air quality conformity analysis, and 

state planning requirements. Such duplication is a source of 

excessive paperwork. There also is a perception that some 

of the required work is done just to satisfy federal and state 

requirements rather than to improve planning for the metropolitan area. 

rn 

MPOs recognize that they need help. 351 

Although some MPOs need more help than others, the overall 

spectrum of needs is quite broad. It includes, in priority order, 

help with: 

rn Intergovernmental coordination; 

rn Data and quantitative analysis; 

rn Planning strategies and methods; 

The funding process; 

Public involvement; 

Financially constraining their plans and transportation 

improvement programs (TIPS); 

rn Implementation techniques; and 

rn Prioritizing projects in the TIPs. 

3 
361 More capacity-building assistance appears to be available than is being delivered 

effectively to many of the MPOs. 

w The US. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), sometimes in cooperation with others, has devoted considerable 

resources to providing technical assistance and research 

support to the SDOTs and MPOs to help them address the 

new needs created by ISTEA. These efforts include meetings and conferences, contract research, university 

research, technology sharing, training, and other opportunities. However, many MPOs, especially the smaller ones, 

cannot afford the time or the expense to take advantage of 

these opportunities. 

MPOs now get, or expect to get, the help they need largely from the federal and ' state governments. 

rn The next most frequently mentioned source of help was 

other MPOs, but that help was mostly anticipated in the 

future. Six other sources of help were mentioned less frequently. 

The U.S. DOT field presence is not as supportive as MPOs would like it to be. 

w The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) field presence is 

much less evident than that of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Some FHWA and FTA procedures still 

differ enough to cause confusion in the MPOs, especially 

when making use of flexible funds. Differences with the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also cause 

confusion. 

Questions to DOT field staffs often do not provide much 

help, and sometimes bring conflicting interpretations. 

MPO staffs feel the need for stronger federal support when 

dealing with their policy boards and SDOTs, and when 

attempting to educate the general public and the local elected officials about the concepts and requirements in 

ISTEA-which is a key part of building public support for 

the changes called for. 

4 
w Several MPOs desired a closer, more supportive working relationship with federal field personnel representing all the transportation modes. In particular, they felt it would be helpful for 

the federal participants in the technical committee and policy 

board meetings to be more active, buying in and committing 

to solutions, and assisting in developing the understandings 

that the other participants were trying to develop. The passivity of the federal personnel leaves a vacuum, an uncertainty, an 

unsettling feeling that what is being developed may not be 

acceptable to the federal government, and a long wait after the 

MPO acts to learn whether there will be a federal (or state) 

decision to countermand the MPO. It was felt that active federal participation and support could help legitimize the status 

of the newer partners and shorten the decisionmaking process. 

391 Significant gaps exist in the knowledge needed to implement ISTEA effectively, efficiently, and equitably. 

rn This suggests the need for a strong research program designed 

specifically to back up the efforts to improve the capacity of 

MPOs to respond appropriately to ISTEA. Assistance to the 

MPOs, if it is to be credible, needs to be scientifically correct, 

adequately peer-reviewed, practical to use in a variety of different settings, and authoritative. Any uncertainty in the stateof-the-art should be acknowledged in the ISTEA regulations, 

and leeway should be provided for experimentation. 

The research challenges include the need for new models, new 

data, effective transportation control measures, a better understanding of concepts such as environmental and social equity, 

and hard thinking about some of the newer management systems and their relationships to the rest of the planning process. 

5 
6 
RECOMMENDATIONS 

Considering all these findings together, the Commission concludes that efforts to 

improve the capacity of MPOs to perform their ISTEA tasks should be built around three 

interrelated principles: 

w Educate more than regulate. 

H Create a common understanding among all the partners about what ISTEA 

requires in a practical working sense. 

Create a closer, more trusting working relationship among all the partners in the 

MPO process. 

w 

To implement this conclusion, the Commission makes the following recommendations. 

A Comprehensive MPO Capacity-Building Program 

The U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) should 

establish a more comprehensive capacity-building program 

for metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) that (a) 

addresses the needs of all participants in the MPO process, (b) 

makes affordable and effective assistance available to all 

MPOs, (c) covers a broad array of topics, and (d) provides a 

broad array of services. 

w Audience. Although there is substantial research and assistance for MPOs, it is conceived primarily as assistance to 

the MPO staffs, and much of it is not getting through even 

to that limited audience. The audience should be greatly 

broadened, and the delivery of assistance should be more 

systematic and intentional. The present, largely passive federal approach should be turned in a more active direction 

designed to reach all MPOs and all of the partners in the 

MPO process-not just the staffs. 

The targeted partners should include the local elected officials, citizen participants, the general public, transportation 

providers, and the federal and state field staffs who work 

with the MPOs. All of these participants should be getting 

the same messages about ISTEA-though perhaps in different forms according to the needs of their differing roles 

in the process. To the extent that they all receive consistent 

messages, the process is likely to be more constructive. 

7 
Delivery. A wider array of techniques should be used to 

deliver assistance to MPOs (and all their federal, state, and 

local partners, and the public) in a more cost-effective manner. Techniques that should be emphasized include video 

tapes (with companion workbooks and correspondence 

course options), satellite hookups, electronic bulletin 

boards, TV spots, traveling road shows, interactive video 

conferencing, and an upgraded Technology Transfer (T2) 

Program. A concerted effort should be made to put the 

MPOs in touch with all the latest helps, and with new 

opportunities as they develop. The new national Association of MPOs (AMPO) and state associations of MPOs 

should be used as a means of keeping the capacity-building 

program relevant and focused on the most needed activities. 

The objective should be to reach all of the audiences with 

consistent, multimodal messages about what ISTEA 

expects and how to deliver results-at a cost they can 

afford and with a degree of convenience that is too good to 

pass up. 

Topics. Initially, highest priority topics for help include (in 

rank order): 

0 Intergovernmental coordination; 

0 Data and quantitative analysis; 

0 Planning strategies and methods; 

The funding process (including facilitation of intermodal 

flexible funding); 

Public involvement; 

Financially constrained plans and transportation improvement programs (TIPs); 

0 Implementation techniques; and 

0 Prioritizing projects in the multimodal TIPs. 

In addition, there should be an authoritative, but easy to 

understand, explanation of ISTEA that puts all the concepts 

together and motivates effective participation by all parties. 

Assistance also is needed in developing the intergovernmental agreements that form the basis of MPO processes. 

The messages about these topics should be developed by 

U.S. DOT through intergovernmental consultations and 

peer review. 

8 
Services. The MPO capacity-building program should meet 

identified needs for training, applied research, information 

sharing, site-specific technical assistance, and dispute resolution. There was a strong desire by half of the MPOs surveyed for a “best practices” clearinghouse-which implies 

that there should be some evaluation of practices before 

they are promoted for use by other MPOs. This evaluation 

should include peer-review. 

The research backup for this capacity-building program 

should strive to provide a reliable basis for improving the 

MPO process. To help ensure this essential reliability, the 

research should seek to be scientifically sound, adequately 

peer-reviewed, practical, authoritative, and timely. 

321 Supportive U.S. DOT Reorganizations 

US. DOT should consider reorganizing its training, research, 

andfield units to enable it to deliver a more unified, coherent, 

effective, and efficient capacity-building program 

For example, the separate National Highway Institute (NHI) and 

National Transit Institute (NTI) resources could be combined to 

establish a stronger intermodal training institute with a major TV 

studio devoted to producing a broad array of instructional programs that could be beamed by satellite to all MPOs, SDOTs, 

federal field offices, transportation providers, elected officials, 

and affected publics across the nation. By this means, the same 

story would be getting out to everyone, so they could align with 

it and hold each other accountable for the intended results. A 

major aspect of this enhanced program should be to help educate 

the general public and elected officials about ISTEA-to help 

build the public support needed to make ISTEA a success. 

Unifying the field presence of DOT would help to overcome the 

current unevenness among the modes in the field. Only FHWA 

personnel are uniformly available in the field. Other modes are 

too sparsely staffed to participate regularly in MPO activities. 

This skews the federal presence away from the intermodal intent 

of ISTEA. 

9 
Even the regional office locations of the various modes differ, 

creating difficulties in coordinating the current federal field 

structure. 

A consolidated U.S. DOT field structure should be thoroughly 

trained as a truly intermodal group, capable of providing constructive capacity-building help and reliable and helpful participation in MPO activities. 

Regulatory Relief for MPOs 

US. DOT should couple its MPO capacity-building program 

with a program to reduce regulatory burdens on the MPOs and 

their partners in the cooperative transportation planning 

process. 

U.S. DOT should step up its efforts to move in the direction of 

educating its partners in ISTEA rather than regulating them. The 

multiple regulations issued under ISTEA, with their deadlines 

and long checklists of tasks, introduce rigidities and stress into 

the operations of the partners without clearing up the ambiguities inherent in the legislation. Clear, peer-reviewed examples of 

how ISTEA requirements can be met by each type of MPO without excessive effort and paperwork should be provided. These 

examples should be available to help guide MPOs, such as large 

nonattainment, large attainment, small nonattainment, small 

attainment, interstate, and multiple-MPO situations. 

This enhanced reliance on educating the partners should be 

designed to provide flexibility to perform ISTEA functions creatively in each MPO setting, and to empower the MPOs to do a 

better job in developing their own solutions to problems. Federal 

requirements should be coupled with motivation and capacity to 

perform creatively. Barriers to effective performance-such as 

inadequately coordinated federal regulations and inconsistent 

practices among federal agencies in such activities as processing 

applications for transferring funds from one mode to anothershould be bridged in consultation with the affected parties. Federal, state, and local decisionmaking should be focused in the 

cooperative MPO process, so that the MPO decision usually will 

be consistent with the views of all the parties, and subsequent 

reviews will be unnecessary or expedited, and unlikely to produce surprises. 

10 
To supplement its regulations, U.S. DOT should move cautiously and cooperatively toward greater use of consensus performance goals and measures of accomplishment. ISTEA goals 

should be operationalized in cooperation with the SDOTs, 

MPOs, and other transportation stakeholders, and data series 

should be reviewed and strengthened-by intergovernmental 

consensus-to provide periodic checks on results that could be 

assessed objectively at national, state, and metropolitan levels. 

Annual “report cards” on the status of national, state, and metropolitan area transportation systems should be used to communicate objectively with the public and demonstrate the 

accountability of transportation agencies in response to publicly 

announced performance goals. Competition for “good grades” 

would be a healthy incentive to improve results. 

Some of the ISTEA goals that should be operationalized into 

measures of success-through an intergovernmental consensus 

process-might include improving air quality, lessening congestion, enhancing environmental and social equity, developing fair 

and equitable intergovernmental relationships and voting 

arrangements, and raising the level of customer satisfaction. The 

ISTEA goals should be maintained, but rigid requirements 

should be loosened (by legislation in some cases) to allow reasonable progress rather than arbitrarily timed compliance that 

may be out of step with reality. 

Where progress is not being made, a search for the stumbling 

blocks, by all partners, would indicate where attention is needed. 

SDOTs also should not regulate the MPO process unnecessarily. 

Means should be found to meet federal, state, and local planning 

requirements with the least possible duplication of effort. 

An ISTEA Mediation, Conciliation, and Peer-Review Service 341 

US. DOT should support a mediation, conciliation, and peerreview service. 

ISTEA raises, but does not resolve, many difficult issues that are 

likely to lead to disputes. Among them are: 

0 MPO boundaries, membership, grandfathering, and 

0 Air quality conformity; 

0 Funding estimates for constraining plans and TIPs; 

0 Allocations of scarce funds in prioritized TIPs; 

redesignations; 

11 
Coordination among multiple MPOs in the same area; and 

Coordination between the SDOTs and MPOs. 

These issues cannot be solved by writing regulations. Solutions 

provided by ISTEA relies on a series of mutual vetoes, which can 

be avoided only through cooperation among the various parties. 

ISTEA, however, does not provide clear mechanisms to facilitate 

the needed cooperation. It is just assumed that the parties will find 

a way to make it happen. 

The federal government’s position outside a particular region or 

state gives it the opportunity-and perhaps even charges it with the 

responsibility-to be an active peacemaker. The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1990 promotes the use of this technique by 

federal agencies and provides assistance through the Administrative Conference of the United States. 

When disputes such as those listed above seem to be blocking 

progress toward ISTEA goals, an outside, objective mediatoragreed to by the parties-should bring the parties together in a constructive way to resolve their differences, rather than letting issues 

fester until a federal decision about who wins and who loses 

becomes the only alternative. Although the federal government 

may need to continue to “carry a big stick” in order to get some of 

the parties to the bargaining table, use of the stick should be minimized. 

The requirement for certification of the larger MPOs offers an 

opportunity to try an alternative to direct federal regulation. In 

cases where there are no major differences of views that might benefit from a more formal dispute resolution process, U.S. DOT 

should try promoting peer-reviewed self-evaluations in lieu of federal certification. A number of regional councils do self-evaluations that involve politicians as well as staff and other 

constituencies. The peer review should come from a site-visit team 

composed of federal, state, and local officials, and private experts 

from outside the region and state(s). 

The emphasis in this process should be on taking stock and finding 

ways to improve. This would be approached through a partnership 

between the MPO and the peer-review team. It should prove to be a 

significant learning experience for all of them. Approached as a 

“management by objectives” process, the evaluatiodreview would 

establish goals for incremental improvement. By this means, each 

MPO would be put on a path toward continuous improvement. (A 

similar approach also could be used with SDOTs.) 

12 
SDOT Roles in MPO Capacity-Building 

The state DOTS should be active partners with the federal government in helping to strengthen the capacity of MPOs. 

The original MPOs-in the 1950s, before they were requiredwere established by state highway departments to help them understand the complex metropolitan area transportation systems. Some 

SDOTs still are the predominant influences in the activities of the 

MPOs. Nevertheless, ISTEA contemplates MPOs as independent, 

local-government driven actors within an interdependent, intergovernmental transportation partnership. Thus, the MPOs should be 

standing on their own, with appropriate assistance from federal and 

state sources. 

State participation in the MPO process is essential in many ways, 

because (1) the state and metropolitan plans and TIPS are integral 

to one another, (2) the state management systems are integral to the 

MPO plans and programs, and (3) the MPO plans and programs are 

integral to the SDOT plans and programs. The more constructive 

and facilitative the state participation, the easier it is for the MPO 

to do its job. SDOTs should supply predictable funding and timely 

financial capacity estimates to the MPOs. 

Other capacity-enhancing activities the SDOTs should pursue on 

behalf of the MPOs include: 

0 Encouraging the state association of MPOs; 

Sponsoring an annual SDOTMPO planning conference; 

Using the Technology Transfer (T2) program to provide 

Sponsoring such mechanisms as a statewide interactive TV 

Using joint SDOT/MPO task forces to resolve specific 

training to the MPO participants; 

training network; and 

issues. 

13 
161 MPO Responsibility for Capacity-Building 

MPOs-in cooperation with all their partners-should do everything they can to strengthen their own capacities to respond to 

the goals of ISTEA. 

It is easy to get caught up in the whirlwind of meeting ISTEA 

requirements and forget the purposes of the program. MPOs 

need to: 

rn Take time out to think about what they are doing; 

rn Train their staffs, elected officials, and other stakeholders to 

understand the new concepts and methods of ISTEA planning; 

rn Go through some self-evaluation exercises; and 

rn Develop a program of improvement. 

These are not frills; they are essential activities that need to be 

programmed into the MPO work program. 

MPOs-and their partners-also should exchange their 

experts to enhance their experience and infuse new ideas into 

the organizations. In addition, MPOs and their partners should 

supply persons to serve on the peer-review teams for other 

MPOs. 

14 
CHAPTER 1 

ASSISTING METROPOLITAN PLANNING 

ORGANIZATIONS TO IMPLEMENT ISTEA 

The Intermodal Surface Transportation 

EfJiciency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) created important new roles for the nation’s 339 officially 

recognized metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), which are responsible for the 

transportation planning required to keep their 

regions eligible for federal highway, transit, 

and surface transportation funds. This newfound importance, however, came at a time 

when many MPOs had fewer capacities than 

needed to perform their planning functions, 

and when it was difficult for them to expand. 

During the 1980s’ federal assistance and 

requirements for metropolitan planning 

declined in most programs other than transportation, leaving MPOs more isolated from 

other types of planning and depriving them of 

supplementary sources of planning moneyincluding former big players such as HUD and 

EPA. In addition, the federal budget deficit in 

the 1990s has kept ISTEA from being fully 

funded. 

This study addresses the question of 

MPO capacity. It begins with the hypothesis 

that many, if not all, of the MPOs need help in 

fulfilling the expectations of ISTEA, and outlines their initial experiences in seeking to 

comply with the law. 

This study reports new field work on 18 

MPOs serving 12 metropolitan areas of differing sizes and circumstances. Every effort was 

made to pick the most fully representative 

MPOs, within the limits of the study’s 

resources. The process of choosing these cases 

is described in Chapter 2. 

This limited-case field work approach 

was chosen because of the large number of 

questionnaires already sent to MPOs by other 

researchers, growing MPO resistance to further 

surveys, and the need for a more in-depth 

understanding of MPO needs. This study seeks 

to build on existing research. 

Purpose of this Study 

The purpose of this study is to identify 

the types of assistance that MPOs could use to 

best advantage in building the capacities they 

need to more fully implement ISTEA. The 

report will be used as a resource for the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) special Conference on MPO capacity needs, May 21-24, 

1995. The conference is to develop and recommend a multiyear research and technical assistance program for MPO capacity-building that 

could be supported by the U.S. Department of 

Transportation. 

This chapter provides a framework for 

the study. It begins with a brief examination of 

the new expectations created by ISTEA, and 

then summarizes the findings of recent conferences, surveys, and studies that have addressed 

MPO capacity issues. A brief review of capacity-building assistance is also included. 

Review of these materials informed the 

development of the questions asked in the site 

visits reported in Chapter 3. 

New Expectations for MPOs 

Under ISTEA 

ISTEA brings three new, far-reaching 

philosophies to the administration of federal 

surface transportation programs: 

15 
1. Decentralization of decisionmaking to 

the state and local governments, and 

particularly to the MPOs in the larger 

metropolitan areas of 200,000 population or more; 

2. Stronger environmental connections, 

especially to the Clean Air Act; and 

3. Elevation of nontraditional goals and 

stakeholders to new prominence in the 

planning and decisionmaking processes. BOX I 

In addition, ISTEA provides for intermodal flexibility in the use of most grant funds 

Box 1 

ZSTEA’S IMPACT ON MPOs 

Seeds of Change 

Decentralization of decisions will give many MPOs a 

larger area to plan for, more miles of roads to make decisions about, more flexibility to consider alternatives to 

the automobile, a lead role in allocating certain federal 

transportation funds, a longer time horizon to consider, 

and a responsibility to consider many transportationrelated public policies. 

Environmental considerations will be much more of a 

driving force in the work of MPOs. Compliance with 

national air quality standards will become paramount for 

areas that do not meet them. Other federal environmental 

standards that will need increased attention from MPOs 

are protection of wetlands, cleanup of urban stormwater 

runoff, and transportation of hazardous wastes. 

Nontraditional goals and stakeholders include (a) 

international competitiveness; (b) energy conservation; 

(c) economic development and jobs; (d) equality of 

access, opportunity, and mobility for underserved and 

disadvantaged populations; (e) historic preservation; (0 

neighborhood preservation; and (g) renewed vitality of 

central cities. 

. 

Reinvented MPOs will: 

Expand their boundaries and memberships. 

Rebuild and expand their planning programs. 

Strengthen their public involvement programs. 

* Financially constrain their planning and programming. 

Build an effective political decisionmaking capacity. 

Equitably represent central cities. 

Link with others to form effective intergovernmental 

partnerships. 

Retool the staff. 

Source: Bruce D. McDowell, “Reinventing Planning under ISTEA: 

MPOs and State DOTS. ISTEA’s Impact,” TRNews. 

1 NovemberDecember 1994. 

and emphasizes efficient use of the whole 

intermodal system. 

These new philosophies imply that MPOs 

will be transformed from weak advisory bodies 

into strong decisionmaking partners working 

closely and on a more equal footing with the 

state departments of transportation (SDOTs), 

the governors, air quality and land use regulators, and other major stakeholders. 

To fulfill these expectations, many MPOs 

may need to consider revising their boundaries 

and organizational structures, upgrading their 

planning processes, working more closely and 

productively with the other partners in the 

ISTEA process, and strengthening their ability 

to make credible political decisions that set priorities, allocate scarce funds, and take responsibility for results. BOX 2 

MPO Capacity 

Many MPOs will need to enhance: 

Institutional structures and relationTechnical planning processes; and 

Political decisionmaking and impleships; 

mentation clout. 

These three concepts provided a basis for 

the field research reported in Chapter 3. Each 

type of capacity is equally important in fulfilling the promise of ISTEA. Neglecting any one 

of them leaves the MPO process without the 

tools it needs. 

Ambiguities 

Even while ISTEA was being debated in 

the Congress, the revolutionary nature of many 

provisions was recognized and hedged with 

ambiguities. For example: 

The clear intent that MPOs expand 

their boundaries and bring many new 

stakeholders into their decisionmaking 

processes is coupled with the “grandfathering” of all existing MPOs. Many 

MPOs are not anxious to reopen tough 

16 
Box 2 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL CHALLENGES IN ISTEA 

Key Reforms in the Act 

Increases authorized spending by 28 percent. 

Doubles the authorization for transit and makes many 

highway funds eligible for transfer to transit. Makes the 

non-federal match 20 percent for most programs to 

remove any financial disincentive for transferring funds. 

Replaces four separate federal highway systems with 

one, and creates a new intermodal surface transportation 

block grant. 

Authorizes a $1 billion annual grant to help pay for congestion management and air quality improvement. 

Requires transportation plans and programs to conform 

to air quality plans. 

Uses the fiscal capacity of recipients as a consideration in 

non-federal match for certain fixed guideway transit capital investment grants. 

Channels metropolitan planning funds for transit through 

states for the first time. 

Requires statewide transportation planning for the first 

time. 

Requires new style of more detailed and more effective 

‘‘performance’’ planning by the SDOTs and MPOs. 

- Increases supporting research, statistical, educational, 

and training services to SDOTs and MPOs. 

Creates new National Surface Transportation R&D Plan, 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Highway 

Institute, Office of Intermodalism, and National Transit 

Cooperative Research Program. 

New Capacities Needed by MPOs 

Technical Capacity. Rebuild planning capacities lost in the 

1980s, and add new performance planning and benefit-cost 

techniques. 

Political Capacity. Add additional key political players to 

the MPO governing board, and transform the MPO’s technical documents into political documents that allocate implementation funds and take responsibility for reducing 

congestion and air pollution, repairing bridges and pavements, and improving safety. 

Geographic Capacity. Push the boundaries of the MPO out 

beyond the presently urbanized area to encompass the 20- 

year growth area and the air quality region. Add local governments in the new areas to the governing body. Link 

together all the MPOs that serve the new area if there is more 

than one. 

Source: Bruce D. McDowell, “Reinventing Surface Transportation: New Intergovernmental Challenges,” Intergovernmental Perspective, 

Winter 1992, pp. 6-8, 18. 

organizational issues on which they 

could lose more than they might hope 

to gain. 

The intent that MPOs play a much 

stronger role in determining the use of 

federal transportation funds in their 

area is coupled with a gubernatorial 

veto over the metropolitan transportation improvement program (MTIP) 

and the lack of any direct funding to 

the MPOs. The federal funds all go 

through the SDOTs, strengthening the 

belief that little had occurred to displace their preeminent position. 

Much of the act is written as though 

there is a single MPO for each region, 

and a single SDOT for each MPO, but 

this ideal frequently does not occur. 

Multiple MPOs and SDOTs operating 

in the same metropolitan area have little guidance on how to work together 

. 

effectively. Federal responsibility to 

ensure this coordination is viewed as a 

last-resort backstop provision to be 

used very sparingly. 

Dialogues 

Within a month after ISTEA was enacted, 

the 1992 Annual Meeting of the Transportation 

Research Board convened in Washington, DC, 

and the debate between the skeptics and the 

idealists was joined. Those who believed that 

little had changed came into direct contact with 

those who believed that ISTEA had changed 

everything. It was still too early to conclude 

much, other than that there was an urgent need 

to develop a continuing dialogue to bridge the 

wide gap between these two camps. 

In March 1992, the Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP)-a new coalition of 

environmentalists, design and planning profes17 
signals, and state and local governments established to help develop the first post-Interstate 

transportation act-convened a special conference on ISTEA in Washington, DC. When the 

dust settled from the lobbying on ISTEA, 

STPP emerged as the most influential agent of 

change. This conference was designed to bring 

together the traditional and nontraditional players named in ISTEA and begin to articulate 

more precisely the intended changes. 

STPP, which had been formed as a temporary body to pass the legislation, began to 

see that it was needed for a longer period of 

time if the changes it had advocated in the legislative process were to be put into practice. 

BOX3 

Box 3 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT 

PUSHED ISTEA GOALS 

STPP is a coalition of more than 100 public interest groups 

that helped write ISTEA. Soon after the act passed, STPP 

held a session to begin a dialogue with transportation and 

other public officials on the implementation of broad goals: 

connecting transportation to energy conservation, environmental protection, and community viability. 

Issues Raised 

1) What are the barriers to and incentives for flexible use 

of funds for non-highway projects? 

2) What are the implications of the new planning 

requirements? 

3) What are the new project selection and programming 

processes, the roles of state and local officials, and the 

status of previous set-asides? 

4) What is the meaning of‘ the financial feasibility 

requirment? 

5) WFA kind of contribution can transportation enhancer.ients make to economic and environmental goals? 

Who is involved? 

6) What are the new forms needed for public participation? 

7) What changes are needed in design standards and how 

do they apply to federal standards? 

STPP wanted to ensure that transportation plans and methods addressed all modes and community livability goals, 

beyond the former focus on highways and mobility. 

Source: Planning Committee correspondence for STPP conference, 

ISTEA: New Partners for Surface Transportation in the 1990s, 

March 30-31, 1992, Washington, D.C. 

By May 1992, the U.S. Department of 

Transportation was actively promoting the dialogues needed to accomplish the changes 

called for in ISTEA. The Charlotte, North Carolina, conference on “Moving Urban America,” raised more questions than it answered, 

but it also established an agenda for change 

that included realistic steps toward improving 

quality of life, expanding public involvement, 

nurturing new partnerships that transcend divisions between existing power centers, integrating the six new management systems and 

linking them firmly to traditional planning and 

programming processes, improving the 

sequence of required steps and products in the 

planning process, and putting the federal government into a more supportive role. BOX4 

Three weeks later, TRB held another conference on the new transportation data needs 

created by ISTEA. The amount, types, quality, 

and timeliness of transportation data were 

found to need much improvement. BOX5 

In July 1992, TRB convened a conference at the request of U.S. DOT to examine the 

specifics of the planning, programming, 

financing, and institutional changes needed, 

and to develop recommendations for research 

that could help accelerate progress toward 

ISTEA goals. Highlights of the research needs 

identified are listed in BOX6. They concentrated heavily on quantitative analysis needs (data 

collection, forecasting, modeling, and program 

evaluation), but they also included: 

Institutional needs (consensus-building 

techniques for decisionmakers, public 

involvement, coordination of multiple 

MPOs, and documentation of institutional changes made in response to 

ISTEA); 

Financial planning needs (data, forecasting, and revenue options), needs 

for doing something about the transportation/land use link; and 

Needs for sharing information about 

best practices (including case studies). 

Another national conference, convened by 

TRB in December 1992, identified barriers 

18 
Box 4 

THE QUESTIONS DEBATED 

ISTEA called for significant changes in how US DOT and its partners did business, therefore, the department sponsored a series of 

conferences to bring the parties together. The first meeting, “Moving Urban America,” was held in May 1992 in Charlotte, North Carolina, and raised many fundamental questions and offered tentative 

findings. 

Questions 

Can transportation engineers recognize the viewpoints of citizens and elected officials? 

Can transportation professionals include environmental and 

social concerns in their work and can environmental advocates 

recognize mobility and economic development objectives? 

Can MPOs move beyond technical analysis and wish lists to fiscal programming and construction phasing? 

Will system preservation projects and small community-based 

projects such as bike paths and public safety compete with large, 

politically glamorous projects? 

Do MPOs have the political will to rank projects? How do they 

show elected officials the effect of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) on their decisions? 

Can states cooperate with locally elected officials and share the 

credit and blame for decisions? 

- 

- 

- 

- 

On what rational basis do we make multimodal decisions? 

How do we utilize the land use powers of locally elected of& 

cials to achieve growth management? 

Findings 

The promise of ISTEA was thought to depend on: 

1, 

2. Expanded public participation; 

3. Making the transportation and land use connection; 

4. A simplified version of the combined air quality and transportation planning process; 

5. Stronger partnerships between state and local officials; 

6. Resolution of the mutual veto powers in CAAA and ISTEA; 

7. Integrating the six management systems with each other and 

into the plans and programs of the state DOTs and MPOs; 

8. Coordinating the sequence of products required by ISTEA 

from state DOTs and MF’Os; 

9. Better air quality conformity guidance for TIP development; 

10. Federal encouragement of experimentation and exchange of 

ideas; and 

1 I. Adequate resources for developing better planning models, 

performing needed research, and enhancing state DOT and 

Broad commitment to achievable results; 

Source: Transportation Research Board, Moving Urban America, Proceedings of a Conference, May 1992, Special Report No. 237. 

Box 5 

TRANSPORTATION DATA NEEDS - IMPLICATIONS FOR MPUS AND SDUTS 

This national conference, in May 1992, raised the challenges of using 

data for complex planning and management systems required by 

ISTEA. Conference recommendations were new training, shared 

SDOT and MPO work programs, and regular conferences to be developed jointly with MPOs. 

New Systems 

The old planning process used single sets of relatively simple and static demand, supply, and system performance measures. The new measures under ISTEA need to be more detailed, dynamic, and interactive 

to support analysis of 

Multiple issues and options; 

Short- and long-range time scales; 

Multiple impacts and results; 

. Feedback on results and changed conditions; 

- Viewpoints of multiple participants; 

* 

Institutional Challenges 

New systems must address: 

* A changing institutional context; 

Financial constraints and investment trade-offs. 

The data needs of decisionmakers, not just professionals; 

The diversity of the new participants in decisions; 

The most effective way of communicating data; 

- 

Need for integrated SDOT and MPO work programs. 

Data Collection and Management Challenges 

State and local officials will need to be helped with: 

. Quality control; 

* 

* 

Staffing. 

Data Analysis Challenges 

SDOTs and MPOs will have difficulty collecting all the data 

required by law. Efficient systems and training are needed for: 

* 

Staffing; 

- 

Selected Research Recommendations 

* 

Effective use of limited resources; 

Effective sampling and statistical analysis methods; and 

Transportation planning models for decisionmaking; 

Data demands of diverse “customers”; 

Information sharing among MpOs and states. 

Enhance predictive ability of transportation and air quality models; 

Determine performance measures and develop a national 

approach; 

Develop cost-effective methods for analyzing present mobility; 

Define new methods for intermodal planning, land use impacts, 

and transportation control measure impacts. 

* 

- 

Source: Transportation Research Board, Transportation Data Needs: Programs for a New Era; Proceedings, April 1993, Circular NO. 407. 

19 
Box 6 

MULTIMODAL PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING IN THE REAL WORLD 

In the third U.S. DOT conference in July 1992 in Seattle, 

the transportation planning community wrestled specifically with how to undertake multimodal and intermodal planning and programming. This large conference consisted of 

workshops, papers, and keynote addresses. It concluded: 

The new challenges of ISTEA and CAAA are: 

Expanding the scope of planning (that includes many 

externalities and all elements of metropolitan planning), 

and undertaking performance-based planning (that 

includes the six new management systems) will require 

new planning and decisionmaking capacity at the 

regional and state levels. 

Institutionalizing new partnerships with groups not previously formally involved (such as shippers and transit 

groups). 

Avoiding gridlock in the new intergovernmental decisionmaking process-using new criteria to guide decisionmaking and new performance monitoring systems 

designed to help resolve policy and goal conflicts by 

analyzing options and trade-offs. 

Developing rigorous and responsive financial planning 

techniques for MPOs and SDOTs that will bring key 

participants into the process earlier and put planners 

and decisionmakers under scrutiny and provide flexible 

and competitive financing. 

Research is needed to: 

Develop and circulate case studies on successful practices; and emphasize cases on citizen participation, 

state and h4PO planning, and coordination among multiple MPOs and SDOTs in the same region. 

Monitor institutional changes and organizational 

arrangements. 

Source: Transportation Research Board, Trunsportufion Planning, Programming, and Finunce, Proceedings of a Conference, April 1993, Circular No. 406. . 

likely to hinder development of intermodal 

transportation planning, recommended specific 

research topics to aid intermodal planning, and 

suggested steps that could be taken to enhance 

the prospects of intermodal planning. BOX 7 

summarizes the conference. The steering committee for the conference has become an active, 

ongoing Intermodal Task Force within the TRB 

committee structure. 

In Fall 1993, at the direction of Secretary 

Federico Pefia, U.S. DOT held meetings in all 

ten federal regions to listen to its “customers” 

about how ISTEA was working. The ten major 

national issues uncovered are listed in BOX8. 

They emphasize the need for greater simplicity 

and flexibility, full funding of the act, preservation of existing facilities, increased priority for 

freight movement, and expanded training and 

support. A detailed 15-point action plan was 

adopted to carry these objectives forward. 

Other conferences have been held on specific topics such as livable communities, the 

six required management systems, the transportation/land use link, travel management 

improvement, and research needs for multimodal and intermodal planning. Additional 

conferences on ISTEA topics are planned, 

including the Fifth Annual Conference in 

April 1995 on the application of transportation planning methods (see Appendix B). 

A new dimension was added to this dialogue in July 1994 when the first annual 

meeting of the national Association of MPOs 

(AMPO) was convened. This conference, 

titled “The Power of Partnerships,” focused 

on the role of MPOs in convening all the 

players in transportation planning and policymaking. They were challenged by Deputy 

Secretary of Transportation Mortimer 

Downey to look on their ability to orchestrate 

a collaborative planning process and to mediate among competing interests, while providing the technical basis for sound decisions, as 

the key to their success. BOX 9 

Surveys 

AASHTO/NARC/APTA Surveys. In the 

first year of implementation for ISTEA, the 

American Association of State Highway and 

20 
Box 7 

NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ZSTEA AND INTERMODAL PLANNING ISSUES 

This national conference, in December 1992, identified 

3arriers likely to hinder development of intermodal transportation planning, recommended specific research topics to 

lid intermodal planning, and suggested steps that could be 

:aken to enhance the prospects of intermodal planning. 

Barriers 

1. Institutional separation and biases of transportation 

2. Proprietary nature of much vital private transportation 

3. Inconsistent and meaningful definition of system per4. Inadequate private sector participation. 

5. Insufficient resources to solve problems. 

6. Inadequate analytical tools. 

7. No clear process for accomplishing intermodal plan8. Inadequate consideration of vehicle specifications as 

9. Insufficient understanding of all transportation modes 

modes. 

company information. 

formance. 

ning. 

they affect the intermodal system. 

and their relationships. 

Selected Research Recommendations 

I. Document ongoing efforts by MPOs, states, and the 

private sector to conduct intermodal planning and 

cross-modal analysis. 

2. Document progress of the states in developing multimodal plans and intermodal management systems. 

3. Quantify the costs and benefits of modal alternatives, 

life-cycle costs, long-term subsidy requirements, and 

external costs in present value terms. 

4. Develop multimodal and intermodal performance 

measures and standards that can be used for planning 

and monitoring the performance of the intermodal system. 

5. Develop tools to identify and measure the impacts of 

intermodal operational improvements on the transportation system. 

6. Update research in consensus-building techniques and 

conflict resolution. 

7. Examine various approaches to developing an intermodal management system and effective implementation strategy. 

modal context. 

8. Examine the impact of land use planning in an inter9. Document regulatory and institutional issues that 

affect the creation and ongoing operation of intermodal planning. 

Selected Steps to Enhance Prospects 

of Intermodal Planning 

1. Develop and widely distribute educational materials 

that explain the intermodal policy and substantive provisions of ISTEA. 

2. Prepare technical guidance materials that recognize 

the different institutional structures and decisionmaking environments that exist throughout the U.S., while 

still providing a consistent message. 

3. Establish planning links between airport systems/plans 

and ISTEA statehegional plans when reauthorizing 

aviation legislation. 

4. Convene interest groups of intermodal and multimodal 

players to develop a broad-based advocacy agenda for 

building on the multimodal and intermodal aspects of 

ISTEA. 

5. Study improvements to freight corridors needed to 

facilitate global competitiveness. 

6. Develop case studies and demonstrations of good 

intermodal planning practice. 

Source: Transportation Research Board, fSTEA und Intermodal Planning: Concepf, Pracrice, Vision, December 1992, Special Report No. 240. 

Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the 60% of the MPOs responded the first year and 

National Association of Regional Councils 50% the second year. 

(NARC), and the American Public Transit Picking the MPO characteristics out of 

Association (APTA) teamed UP, with u-s. these surveys, it can be seen that most of those 

DOT SUPPOfi, to survey the SDOTs and MPOs. organizations are performing the most essential 

This extensive survey was repeated the follow- functions-unified work program, long-range 

ing year to measure any changes. Almost all of plan, TIP, environmental reviews, and 

the SDOTs responded both years (90%), while exchange of technical support with the SDOT. 

21 
Box 8 

REGIONAL ROUNDTABLE REPORT 

AND ACTION PLAN 

DOT held meetings in the Fall of 1993 with local and state 

officials in the 10 federal regions in order to advise the federal government on how the ISTEA process is working. 

Major National Issues 

US. DOT was urged to: 

Support full funding of ISTEA; 

Oversee the flexible planning and funding processes to 

ensure they work as intended; 

Reduce the complexity and prescriptiveness of ISTEA 

regulations; 

Encourage more flexibility and cooperation from EPA in 

helping communities meet air quality goals; 

Use transportation planning to maximize system efficiency and support economic development; 

Expand ISTEA outreach and training; 

Increase the priority for freight projects; 

Give rural areas a fair shake in the distribution of funds; 

and 

Emphasize preservation of the existing transportation 

system infrastructure. 

Source: U.S. DOT, ISTEA, Regional Roundtable Report and 

Action Plan: A Progress Reportfiom Our Customers, March 1994. 

Box 9 

THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN 

PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS (AMPO) 

MPOs organized to work together at their first annual conference, “The Power of Partnerships,” held in July 1994. 

“There is a power in MPOs that many of us don’t recognize, 

and it’s the power of partnerships . . . of convening all the 

players,” said the chairman. 

A major concern was how MPOs will be evaluated for recertification by USDOT. The proposed system is one of ongoing review and improvement based on best practices for: 

1) Integration of the 15 planning factors; 

2) Public involvement; 

3) Major investment studies; 

4) Congestion management and treatment of air quality 

5) Integration of air quality into planning throughout the 

6) Financially constraining plans and programs. 

Source: Conference on “The Power of Partnerships,” San Francisco, July 21-23, 1994. Notes from NARC. 

analysis; 

process; and 

At least 40% of the MPOs participated in a 

wide range of other ISTEA activities. The least 

frequently practiced activities (fewer than 40 

percent) are growth management, access management, energy planning, collection of air 

quality data, recreation planning, and zoning. 

BOX10 

There has been a healthy increase in the 

number of MPOs undertaking several ISTEA 

Box 10 

MPO PROGRAM ACTIVITIES 

(in descending order of commonality) 

Most Common (80% to 100%) % 1992 % 1993 YO Change 

Unified work program 91 

TIP conforms to CAAA 84 

MTIPs included in STIP 

Technical support from SDOT 84 

Environmental review 68 

Quite common (65% to 79%) 

Funds programmed for non-road uses 46 

Adequate local matching funds 67 

MPO involved in updating SIP 61 

Joint effort on NHS 72 

Economic development 68 

MPO travel model 62 

Land use decisions 70 

Less common (30% to 64%) 

MPO programming of CMAQ funds 50 

Non-motorized modes 63 

Ride-share 54 

Air quality planning 52 

Corridor preservation 32 

Joint effort to classify roads 36 

Access management 32 

Rare (0 to 29O/0) 

Energy planning 28 

21 

Recreation planning 23 

Zoning at regional level 6 

*Major positive change 

Long-range planning 85 

Technical support to SDOT 75 

Transit planning 74 

Growth management 21 

MPO collects air quality data 

97 

95 

94 

89 

89 

85 

85 

79 

75 

71 

70 

68 

68 

67 

65 

59 

57 

50 

46 

44 

33 

30 

44 

23 

20 

6 

+6 

+11* 

+9 

+5 

+lo* 

+17* 

+33* 

+8 

+lo* 

-4 

-4 

+5 

-5 

+9 

-6 

-4 

-6 

+12* 

-3 

+9 

+12* 

-5 

-3 

Source: American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials, with National Association of Regional Councils and American 

Public Transit Association, Survey and Summaries of Mefropolitan Planning Organizations and State Departments of Transportation, Washington, DC, November 1992 and 1993, 

22 
activities, including air quality conformance 

and involvement in preparing the SIP; providing technical support to the SDOT; preparing 

environmental reviews; and using flexible 

funding, corridor preservation, and access 

management. Thus, ISTEA appears to be having the intended effect, at least in certain 

respects. 

Some other summary findings are shown 

in BOX II. Most noticeable, perhaps, is the 

greater concern with the MPO/SDOT relationship in 1992 compared with 1993. In 1993, the 

MPOs seemed more concerned with internal 

problems. 

NARC j. Data Base. NARC has established a database on MPOs as part of its sponsorship of AMPO. BOX 12 shows some 

preliminary changes since ISTEA was enacted. 

The greatest changes have occurred in the technical committees of the large non-attainment 

area MPOs and the governing boards of the 

small non-attainment MPOs (43 and 45 percent, respectively). There has been less change 

in the other types of MPOs and in the citizen 

advisory committees, and in voting procedures. 

All types ofMP0s have increased thejr staffs, 

FHWA/ACIR Voting Power Survey. 

FHWA had data on voting structures and the 

availability of weighted voting options for 86 

MPO governing bodies (out of 137 surveyed). 

ACIR’s analysis showed that central cities 

were underrepresented on 79 percent of the 

governing boards and that only 18 boards had a 

weighted voting option. (Seth Benjamin, John 

Kincaid, and Bruce McDowell, “MPOs and 

Weighted Voting,” Intergovernmental Perspective, Spring 1994, pp. 31-35.) 

Box I! 

MPO RELATIONSHIPS WITH SDOTS AND OTHERS 

Findings (1 992 Survey) 

Challenges perceived in MPO relationships with SDOTs: 

Coordination 

Reporting requirements 

Equitable distribution of funding 

Developing management systems and TIPS 

Mandated uses of STP funds 

Integrating land use, clean air, and transportation planning 

Other challenges perceived by MPOs: 

Partnerships with interest groups and local governments 

Need for public involvement workshops 

57% of MPOs said they were sole data collectors, while 

84% of SDOTs said they were sole data collectors. 

While 50% of MPOs in non-attainment areas believed 

their plans conform with CAAA, few claimed conformity 

with local land use codes. 

90% of MPOs perceived positive relationships with transit 

operators. 

Findings (1993 Survey) 

Challenges perceived by WOs: 

- Public participation 

Environmental sensitivity 

Data and information 

* Making the link to local land use decisionmakers for 

regional strategies 

MPO policy committee representation expanded to include 

transit owners and operators. 

State and local road functions dominated project selection. 

Consideration of transportation in the development of land 

use plans had increased. 

Use of ISTEA management systems 

Staffing and skills needed to be more comprehensive 

Source: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, with National Association of Regional Councils and American 

Public Transit Association, Survey and Summaries of Metropolitan Planning Organizations and State Departments of Transportation, Washington, DC, November 1992 and 1993. 

23 
Box 12 

MPO BASELINE SURVEY 

A 1994 survey of changes in MPO structure and function shows institutional changes based on an 86% response rate. 

Large MPOs (Rank/%) Small MPOs (Rank/%) All MPOs 

Type of Changes I -I-- 

Average 

Changed technical 1130% 1/43 Yo 1/28% 2131% 1 34% 

Made since ISTEA Attainment L____- Non-attainment Attainment 1 Non-attainment 

committee 

board structure 

Changed governing 2127% 213 1 Yo 2120% 1145% 2 29% 

Changed or formed 3116% 3125% 311 8% 3113% 3 19% 

citizen advisory 

committee 

Changed voting 415% 4/15% 4110% 4/ 10% 4 11% 

procedures 

Added StafF(FTE): 

1990 2.08 8.34 1.29 0.56 3.91 

1993 4.19 11.15 2.03 1.67 5.53 

Source NARC, MPO Busehne Survey, December 1994 Initial tables produced by Robert Gage, University of Colorado 

Research Studies 

The U.S. Department of Transportation 

has commissioned several research studies of 

the roles of MPOs in implementing ISTEA. 

The first two were based largely on literature 

searches, and three were based on original field 

research. 

Institute of Public Administration. In the 

first study (December 1992), the institute laid 

out the technical, consultative, and political 

capacity challenges to MPOs, and recommended several research and technical assistance 

tasks for the department. These recommendations reinforced the findings of the conferences 

held that year. BOX I3 

Harvard. The second study (1993) concentrated on regional governance. Significant 

mismatches were found between the integrated 

planning required by ISTEA and CAAA and 

the widely dispersed governmental structures 

and powers in metropolitan America. Thoroughly participatory MPOs, with solid federal 

encouragement, were recommended to bridge 

the gap. BOX 14 

Subsequent field research in the Metropolitan Washington (DC) area, however, suggests difficulties with such an approach. 

Relying principally on stakeholder participation could mean that each participant will seek 

to use the MPO as a tool to further its own 

interests rather than to promote the common 

good. 

Volpe National Transportation Systems 

Center, US. DOT. In its report on field work in 

the nine largest MPOs (January 1993), the center confirmed that there are substantial gaps 

between current practice and the expectations 

of ISTEA and CAAA. The issues stressed were 

MPO political power, long-range planning, 

better MTIPs, and improved public participation. BOX15 

The National Association of Regional 

Councils/Program for Community Problem 

Solving. The association developed a new public participation manual, drawing on best practices in 28 MPOs. Almost every MPO has cited 

the need for help with this process. BOX I6 

Another U.S. DOT-sponsored study of 

public involvement in transportation planning 

24 
Box 13 

WHAT ISTEA ASKS OF MPOs: 

AN EARLY ASSESSMENT 

The Institute of Public Administration identified three substantial ISTEA challenges to MPOs, based on field 

research. 

1. Technical analysis and planning capacity; 

2. Public involvement and coordination capacity; 

3. Political capacity. 

Issues Needing Research, Experimentation, 

and Evaluation: 

Alternative approaches to U.S. DOT certification of 

MPOs and project approval; 

Steps to link transportation and air quality programs; 

Methods to link land use and transportation decisionmaking and financing; 

Means of implementing intermodalism; 

Adjustments for new intergovernmental roles; 

Better representation of central cities, urban transit agencies, and neighborhoods; 

Effective mechanisms for public participation and building consensus on project priorities; and 

The effect of funding on MPO capacity. 

Recommendations 

U.S. DOT support research and consultation to develop 

new regulations, guidance, and technical assistance to 

encourage MPO innovation and the sharing of expertise. 

This should include ongoing surveys of MPOs. 

Study the effectiveness of transportation control measures, growth management efforts, regional planning, and 

local land use controls. 

Develop criteria for comparing modes and assessing 

trade-offs. 

Study role of governors, cities, neighborhoods and transit 

agencies, and the integration of MPO technical committees, policy boards, and separate councils of governments. 

Source: Institute of Public Administration, ISTEA: Promise to Performance. Prepared for FHWA, U.S.DOT. New York, December 1992. 

Box I4 

ISTEA AND CAAA CHALLENGES TO REGIONAL GOVERNANCE 

Expectations 

ISTEA and CAAA expect surface transportation programs 

to make a major contribution to achieving clean air standards. These laws demand a set of integrated and technically 

complex plans prepared under tight deadlines that link air 

quality and surface transportation. 

their separate roles. Agreement on espoused policy does not 

ensure that it will be carried out. 

Goals Mismatch 

Some regard air quality as a policy lever to control sprawl, 

Structure and Authority Mismatch reduce automobile use, and promote a particular vision for 

“quality of life.” Others promote mobility or access. There is a mismatch between the geographic scale of the 

problem and the structure and authority of the public institutions that must implement ISTEA and CAAA. The United 

States lacks an effective regional structure of politics and 

Divergent goal perspectives may make consensus on policies and projects difficult, despite the federal threat of sanctions for non-compliance. The threat is untested. 

governance. Authority over policy spheres is divided in metroDolitan areas. The Challenge 

U.S. DOT’S challenge is to persuade state and local govern- ments to 

The complexity of air quality and transportation issues compounds the complexity of managing both nongovernmental together to imp1ement ISTEA and .. ~~ 

participation and the participation of geographically overlapping government jurisdictions. 

Public agencies may not have the resources, skills, or time to 

develop necessary organizational capacity and then integrate 

MPOS must elicit and manage participation from various 

government institutions, interest groups, and the public. 

Through diverse participation, policy options are to be 

devised and tough decisions made. 

Source: Arnold M. Howitt and Alan Altshuler, “Regional Governance, Challenges of CAAA and ISTEA,” TR News, No. 167, July-August, 

1 993 I 
Box I5 

PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF MPU COMPLIANCE WITH 

ISTEA AND CAAA 

A late 1993 review of the metropolitan planning processes in nine of 

the largest MPOs identified four significant gaps between current 

practice and the expectations of ISTEA and CAM. 

1. MPOs, historically removed from major political decisionmaking, must now become the key intergovernmental consensus 

builders. 

2. Long-range plans for one or two modes must now become multimodal and intermodal, must focus on alternatives, and must be 

judged against system performance. 

3. The short-range transportation improvement program (TIP), 

which has been just a collection of lightly justified local projects, 

must now become fiscally constrained, thoroughly justified, and 

linked strategically to a long-range plan. 

4. What has been limited public participation must now become an 

earlier, more substantive, and broader process. 

Source: William M. Lyons, “The FTA-FHWA MPO ReviewFPlanning Practice Under ISTEA and CAAA,” 73rd TRB Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, January 1994. 

and project development is due to be completed in 1995. (HowardIStein-Hudson and Parsons Brinkerhoff, Innovative Techniques for 

Public Involvement in Transportation Planning 

and Project Development, forthcoming.) 

MIT. Some of the most well-known 

MPOs were surveyed by telephone regarding 

the 15 required planning factors. BOX I7 

The conclusion was that ISTEA has 

raised expectations for the scope and quality of 

planning beyond what can be accomplished 

now, especially for the smaller MPOs. Consequently, some of the planning factors can be 

considered only qualitatively, but progress is 

being made in improving quantitative methods. 

The institutional, organizational, and political 

issues are the most challenging. BOX 18 

National Academy for Public Administration. In a forthcoming report, NAPA documents the results of a two-phase project 

involving: (1) extensive field research and 

analysis of factors driving change in state 

DOTS and (2) recommendations for the most 

effective response strategies for the departments. The research findings are summarized 

in BOX 19. 

Box 16 

COLLABORATIVE DECISIONMAKING STATUS AND 

SUGGESTIONS 

Metropolitan planning regulations require early and continuing 

public involvement opportunities throughout the transportation 

planning and programming process. A manual on collaborative 

iecisionmaking has been developed based on best practices in 

LlPOs of different population sizes, air quality designations, and 

ocations. 

Zollaborative decisionmaking for transportation planning is 

iefined as a “consensus-based approach in which MPOs work in 

iartnership with citizens, special interest groups, other agencies 

md elected officials to develop transportation plans and programs 

with maximum community support.” 

n areas with populations greater than 200,000, ISTEA transfers the 

ead role in decisionmaking from the state to the MpOs. For areas 

inder 200,000, ISTEA requires a joint decisionmaking arrangenent between the MPO and state DOT. 

Success requires: 

1. Engaging the general public and interests (such as freight) 

that have not had a meaningful role before; 

2. Buttressing the new authority of MpOs to assert metropolitan priorities for the use of federal and state transportation 

funds; 

3. Developing a regional perspective that will allow the local 

politicians governing the MPO to support projects of 

regional benefit; and 

4. Allocating adequate MPO resources to the public participation process. 

Public participation strategies that can assist MPOs include: 

- Strengthened citizen advisory committees; 

* Qualified consultants or staff who can run an innovative 

public participation program; 

Kick-off conferences at the beginning of a new planning 

cycle; and 

Special outreach to civic and business groups. 

Source: National Association of Regional Councils in association 

with Program for Community Problem Solving, Working Together 

on Transportation Planning: A Guide fa Collaborative Decision 

Making, January 1994. Report #FTA-DC-26-6013-94-1. 

Available Assistance 

U.S. DOT has a long record of providing technical assistance and research support to the 

state departments and MPOs, which it depends 

on to implement its programs. These programs 

have been refocused rapidly to address the 

needs of ISTEA. For example: 

Meetings and Conferences. Perhaps the 

largest U.S. DOT program is the Transportation Research Board. Through a network of 

26 
Box I7 

THE 15 PLANNING FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE METROPOLITAN PLAN 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5 

6. 

7. 

Preserve and enhance existing transportation systems 

Conserve energy 

Relieve and prevent congestion 

Integrate transportation policies with land use and 

development policies (demand management, 

growth management, APFO) 

Fund ’/enfiancemen& ” 

Include all transportation projects (not just federally funded ones) 

Make major connections (connectivities) with: 

international borders 

ports and airports 

9 freight routes to modes 

- intermodal facilities 

recreational, historic, and military destinations 

8. 

9. 

Ensure connectivity of metro and non-metro roads 

Meet the needs identified through management 

systems prepared by SDOTs and MPOs 

10. Preserve rzght-ofway for future projects 

1 I. Provide for the efficient movement offieight 

12. Use life-cycle costirig analysis of proposed investments {and prepare major multimodal investment 

analysis: other modes treated like transit “altematives analysis” to facilitate comparative analysis 

across modes) 

13. Transportation impact analyses: social, economic, and environmental (include linkages between 

housing, jobs, and transportation) 

14. Enhance transit services 

15. Enhance transit security 

Box 18 

MPO EXPERIENCES IN ADDRESSING THE 15 PLANNING FACTORS 

4s a result of ISTEA, the planning process has been 

mewed and reinvigorated by MPOs. According to this survey, some of the required I5 factors are still being addressed 

qualitatively, while quantitative methods are under developnent. 

Planning Issues 

Expectations have been raised beyond what can be accomdished. 

Local officials must deal with conflicts between 

urban and suburban priorities. 

Staff is not adequate to deal with Major Investment 

Studies. 

Extensive project planning requirements limit longrange planning activities. 

Integration of management systems is difficult. 

Schedules required by ISTEA and CAAA are unrealistic. 

Smaller MPOs need different guidelines than larger 

MPOs. 

Some view the process as a way to address social, not 

transportation, objectives. 

Flexible funding is not always available. The pie 

needs to be cut more ways but is not bigger. 

Air Quality Issues 

More political cooperation is needed. 

Coordination is needed among federal, state, and 

other agencies dealing with air quality planning. 

Technical models are needed to evaluate conformity. 

Technical models are needed for Major Investment 

Studies. 

Larger and non-attainment MPOs 

In non-attainment areas, MPOs are spending substantial funds to update comprehensive planning tools 

from the 1960s and 1970s. 

The technical problems can be addressed if adequate 

financial resources are made available. 

The institutional, organizational, and political issues 

are most challenging. 

Smaller and attainment MPOs 

Limited staff resources constrain MPOs’ efforts to 

pursue the more comprehensive ISTEA approach. 

Source: Tom Humphrey, “Summary of MPO Experiences in Developing Plans and Programs,” NCHRP Project # 20-5, 1994. Draft report. 

(Used by permission.) 

27 
- 

Box I9 

STATE DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION: 

STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE 

Summary of Findings 

1. Each SDOT is at a unique point in its evolution. Each 

has a different blend of “cultures” that creates strengths 

as well as some obstacles to change. 

2. Almost without exception, Chief Administrative Officers 

of the SDOTs, other SDOT employees, and stakeholders 

see significant changes affecting transportation, with 

important implications for SDOTs’ missions, roles, 

responsibilities, and relationships. 

3. Many SDOTs are applying improvement strategies and 

techniques for achieving organizational effectiveness. 

4. While SDOTs are responding in many ways to factors 

driving change, little evidence exists that fundamental 

change has penetrated very deeply in most SDOTs. 

5. The greatest obstacle to SDOTs in responding effectively 

to change is also their greatest strength-their people. 

6. Changes in organizational culture and methods of operating will take time, effort, and strong leadership. 

7. Broad and dramatic organizational change processes 

generally do not arise without a direct and immediate 

stimulus, despite the magnitude of changes facing 

SDOTs. 

process for gathering information and insights from 

stakeholders, employees, and the general public on 

goals, policies, or programs. 

9. The best means for stakeholders to contribute to the ability of SDOTs to respond to change is to work in partnership with them, according to most interviews. 

8. Most SDOTs do not have a comprehensive or systematic 

Source: Thomas Larson , et al., “State Departments of Transportation: Strategies for Change.” Draft prepared for National Cooperative Highway Research Program, forthcoming from Transportation 

Research Board. (Used by permission.) 

I 

committees, TRB involves the whole transportation community in developing research 

and technical assistance needs statements and 

encouraging the exchange of ideas. The annual 

meeting, mid-year committee meetings, and 

special conferences contribute greatly to this 

effort. Significant papers are published through 

the Records, Twews, Circulars, and conference proceedings. 

Many ideas for TRB research come from 

the committees and special conferences. An 

example is the conference on strategic mobility 

research convened at Irvine, California, 

November 1-3, 1993, to respond to new ISTEA 

and CAM requirements (see Appendix B,. 

Contract Research. US. DOT also contracts directly for research and uses its own 

think tank-the Volpe Transportation Systems 

Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts-to get 

quick results on high-priority topics. 

One such program is the Travel Model 

Improvement Program. This program was initiated cooperatively by the departments of 

Transportation and Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Its purposes are to 

enable travel forecasting to respond to: 

New policy issues like growth management and environmental enhancements; 

Changes in travel behavior associated 

with a variety of transportation control 

measures; and 

The needs of decisionmakers who 

must anticipate the effects of transportation improvements on congestion, air quality, energy conservation, 

and land development. (Edward Weiner, “Upgrading Travel Demand Forecasting Capabilities,” presentation to 

the Fourth National Conference on 

Transportation Planning Methods 

Applications, Daytona, FL, 1993 .) 

The recommendations of a conference on the 

Travel Model Improvement Program are listed 

in BOX 20. 

University Research. U.S. DOT supports transportation research at 13 University 

Transportation Research Centers. Each of 

these centers represents a consortium of universities in a particular region. These centers 

are listed in Appendix B. 

Technology Sharing. U.S. DOT makes 

its research available through a technology 

sharing program that distributes reports and 

other guidance free on request. For example, 

the department issued a memorandum in May 

1994 explaining the status of technical assistance in financial planning. Another example is 

28 
Box 20 

TRAVEL MODEL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 

Conference Recommendations: 

1) The sensitivity of land use and travel models to emerging transportation policies should be improved. 

2) Research is needed to identify household and individual 

activity characteristics that influence trip chaining. 

3) Trip generation models should be sensitive to the type 

and level of transportation services. 

4) Research is needed on choice of trip destination and 

travel mode for non-work and non-home based trips. 

5) Information is needed on changes in travel behavior over 

time to accurately predict future travel. 

6) Models need to be developed for forecasting movements 

of freight, goods, and services. 

7) Research is needed to improve understanding of the 

potential for congestion relief from non-motorized and 

non-transportation modes. 

8) Research is needed to improve land use forecasting procedures and to effectively integrate those with travel 

forecasting procedures. 

9) Better understanding is needed of the influences of vehicle characteristics and operating conditions on motor 

vehicle emissions. 

10) Considerable need exists for training all levels of practitioners in various type and sizes of transportation planning organizations. 

11) Improved communication and timely dissemination of 

information among transportation planning practitioners 

is needed for sharing problems, solutions, and advancements. 

Source: Ed Weiner, speech based on “Travel Model Improvement 

Program Conference Proceedings.” 

the U.S. DOT notebook on public participation 

techniques, Innovations in Public Involvement 

for Transportation Planning (January 1994). 

DOT also offers compilations such as its technical assistance catalogue, Intermodal Technical Assistance Activities for Transportation 

Planners (1993). (See Appendix B.) 

Training. U.S. DOT supports at least 

three training programs for state and regional 

transportation personnel. The National Ilighway Institute and the National Transit Institute 

offer standard courses at a central location. The 

29 

Local Transportation Assistance Program 

offers a variety of more locally accessible 

training opportunities. 

Other Opportunities. Professional associations-such as the American Planning 

Association, the American Society of Civil 

Engineers, and the Institute of Traffic Engineers-offer national conferences, publications, and local chapter activities. In addition, 

constituent organizations-such as the National Association of Regional Councils and the 

national Association of MPOs-provide additional opportunities. 

Also of note are the continuing activities 

of the Surface Transportation Policy Project. In 

addition to a regular newsletter and STPP 

sponsorship of the Livable Communities conferences, the Partner States Program is helping 

to organize the MPOs and citizen groups in 

eight states for creative interchanges of views 

with the SDOTs. BOX21 

STPP also speaks for many non-traditiona1 stakeholders that are included in the ISTEA 

process. It monitors implementation of the act, 

participates in numerous conferences and 

meetings, and offers testimony or comments to 

the Congress and the Administration. BOX 22 

Questions for Field Research 

ISTEA greatly expanded the responsibilities of IWOs in three fundamental respects: 

The MPO organization must be more 

inclusive and linked more strongly with 

other organizations and the public. 

The MPO planning process must be 

considerably broader in scope, fully 

intermodal, more advanced technologically, more outcome oriented, and more 

open to interaction with decisionmakers 

and affected parties. 

A new implementation role is established for MPOs that are designated as 

Transportation Management Areas 

(TMAs). These MPOs (about 137 of 

them, mostly with populations over 

200,000) will determine how to spend 
Box 21 

STPP PARTNER-STATES PROGRAM 

Georgia focuses primarily on public involvement in both 

the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program and the 

long-range Statewide Transportation Plan. 

Maryland focuses on advice to the Maryland DOT on a 

variety of topics. 

Minnesota focuses on advice to MN DOT and support for 

the Minnesota Transportation Alliance. 

Pennsylvania focuses on active STPP participation on 

advisory committees and Program teams, and on Support for 

three statewide citizen-based outreach and education organizations. 

Texas focuses on the statewide transportation enhancements and congestion mitigation programs, a program for 

MPOs, and the formation of a statewide transportation 

coalition called the Trans Texas Alliance. 

~i~~~~~i focuses technical assistance to the ~i~~~~~i Highway and ~~~~~~~~~~i~~ D~~~~~~~~ on the long-range plan, 

transportation system management, and public involvement. 

This work includes expansion of the Missouri Transportation Alliance. 

Virginia focuses on the formation of the Virginia Surface 

Transportation Coalition and advice to Virginia DOT. 

Washington focuses on advice to WASH DOT in establishing its public participation program, and work with the 

state’s two major transportation coalitions. 

Source: Hank Dittmar and Christopher Bender, “Transportation Partnerships: The Surface Transportation Policy Project’s Partner State Program,” TRNews, NovemberiDecember 1994. 

Box 22 

STPP MONITORS ISTEA 

At the end of the second year of ISTEA implementation, the 

Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP) issued a status 

report, judging the effort from its viewpoint. Here is what it 

found: 

ISTEA calls for profound changes in the state DOTs and 

the MPOs. We should not expect this change to occur 

overnight. 

ISTEA shifted decisionmaking from the professionals in 

the state DOTs to a shared responsibility between the 

SDOTs and the MPOs. The MPOs were charged with opening up the process to include all modes, all levels of government, elected officials, and the public. 

But, there are concerns now that: neither the central cities 

nor the suburbs have done well; both the ports and the transit 

operators have been disadvantaged; the MPOs have not 

acted quickly enough to include the state’s projects; and the 

states have not cooperated with the MPOs. 

Confusion has increased because more complex planning 

is called for, but expectations are not clear and the federal 

regulations were not issued until October 1993. 

The clearest winners have been those willing to make 

alliances with new stakeholders who participate actively in 

the planning process. 

Too much of the ISTEA money is being committed 

before ISTEA planning is done. The flexibility to use 

funding for alternatives to the auto is not being used much. 

The lack of flexibility in using state matching funds contributes to this result. In addition, MPOs requesting more 

flexible funds find that inquiries to FHWA bring responses 

only through the SDOTs. This puts transit, bike, pedestrian, 

clean air, and environmental interests at a disadvantage. 

ISTEA is working. It provides the mechanism for integrating transportation into livable communities. It asks the right 

question, “How can we integrate transportation investment 

with a set of community values, including clean air and 

access to housing and jobs?’ 

Source: Surface Transportation Policy Project, ISTEA Year Three: A Special Report on the Implementatron of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Eflcrency Act of 1991. Washington, DC, January 1994. 

30 
about 20 percent of ISTEA funds, making them more responsible for planning 

results (outcomes). TMAs must be federally certified every three years. 

As noted earlier, the specifics of the 

expanded MPO responsibilities have been left 

somewhat ambiguous by both ISTEA and the 

implementing regulations. However, three 

years into the implementation of ISTEA, the 

nature of MPO responsibilities is beginning to 

clarify. 

BOX23 lists the topics of inquiry pursued 

in the field research reported in Chapter 3. 

These topics are organized under the three 

headings listed above. For each of these topics, 

the interviewers asked: 

What had changed because of ISTEA? 

What difficulties were being encountered in complying with ISTEA? 

What kinds of assistance would be 

most helpful in improving the 

response to ISTEA? BOX24 lists suggested questions for the interviewers 

in greater detail. 

The sampling process is described in 

Chapter 2. The relationship of the IS sample 

MPOs to the universe of 339 organizations is 

described. Obviously, different MPOs have different capabilities in relation to ISTEA and 

CAM. Thus, it was important to pick a representative sample to avoid an unrealistic profile 

of MPO needs for assistance. 

Box 23 

BASIC TYPES OF CAPACITY AND LINKAGES TO BE CONSIDERED 

I. Organizational Capacity Expandedflnclusive (Appropriate Organizational Arrangements, Legislation, Structures, and Relationships) 

A. 

B. 

C. 

D. 

E. 

F. 

G. 

H. 

Boundaries 

Decisionmaking board and committees (equitable representation and voting arrangements on technical and policy bodies-r acceptable alternative) 

Designations (MPO, TMA, other federal, other state) 

Involvement of all affected parties--”open” and “equitable” planning processes 

Cooperative coordination agreements (with other MPOs, 

other regional organizations, transportation providers for 

all modes, state agencies, local governments) 

MPOIDOTlgovernor relationships 

Memberships in state and national associations of 

MPOs, regional councils, etc. 

Participation in TRB, national and regional conferences, 

STPP activities, etc. 

11. Planning Capacity (Appropriate Plans and Processes) 

A. 

B. 

Considering the required 15 factors of the plan (Box 17) 

Preparing congestion management systems (CMS) and 

plan to meet air quality standards (if applicablebTMAs 

and small non-attainment areas 

Use of up-to-date planning methods/technologies 

1. Data 

2. Models 

3. Interactive planning processes 

4. Involvement processes 

Adequate personnel (number, quality, experience, training) and/or consultants 

C. 

D. 

E. 

F. 

G. 

Adequate funding of the planning process 

Use of outcome-oriented performance meaures (including “social equity”) 

Financial planning (for the “constrained TIP) 

Ill. Implementation Capacity (Appropriate Action, Results, 

and OutcomesAbility to “Make a Difference” in Transportation Investment and Management Decisions) 

A. 

B. 

C. 

D. 

E. 

F. 

G. 

H. 

I. 

Effective and “equitable” MPO decisionmaking (authority and outcomes) 

1. Constrained TIP 

2. Air quality elements 

3. Intermodal flexibility 

Approval of MTIP by governor 

Incorporation of MTIP into state TIP (STIP) 

Approval of STIP by FHWAlFTA 

Cross-acceptance with local land use and development 

decisionmakers (and growth management) 

Cross-acceptance with regional and state air quality regulators 

Cross-acceptance with wetlands and water quality regulators 

Identification of barriers to flexible planning, decisionmaking, funding, and implementation (and program to 

remove barriers) 

1. Pipeline full oftraditional projects 

2. Matching not flexible 

3. 

4. 

5. Litigation 

Certification by U.S. DOT 

Planning not multimodal and flexible 

Expanded boundaries and scope of work harder tc 

handle 

31 
Box 24 

APPROPRIATE QUESTIONS TO ASK ABOUT EACH ISSUE 

(Interview Guide) 

1. What approaches and innovations are your MPO taking to 

comply with ISTEA and related provisions of CAAA and 

ADA? 

* How helpful are these approaches? 

Do you wish you could use different (or additional) 

approaches? Which ones and why? What is stopping you? 

2. Do you have the tools you need to comply with ISTEA? 

* Which ones are missing? Where can you get them? 

3. What barriers do you have to overcome? 

How can you overcome them? (If you can) 

4. What assistance does your MPO need? (Please be as specific 

as possible.) 

* Bettedclearer federal regulations 

- TRB conferences and publications (including NCHRP and 

TCRP research) 

Consultant Services 

More adequate funding for the MPO 

University training (including University Transportation 

Centers) 

US. DOT Technology Sharing Program 

U.S. DOT research programs 

Statewide transportation coalition 

Interstate transportation coalitions 

Information exchange on “best practices”/clearinghouse 

mechanisms 

Associations of MPOs 

Better federal transportation data 

STPP Partner-States Program 

Other (please specify) 

32 
CHAPTER 2 

MPOs ARE NOTALL ALIKE 

The metropolitan planning responsibilities 

required by ISTEA are carried out by 339 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs).’ This number changes as a result of the decennial population 

census and as the political process adjusts to new 

conditions. Furthermore, MPOs differ greatly in 

size, responsibilities, and capabilities. Thus, studies of MPOs must recognize and represent the 

diversity of this complex universe. 

This chapter examines briefly the universe of 

MPOs and explains how the sample cases were 

chosen for the field work reported in Chapter 3. 

The Universe of MPOs 

MPOs were first required in 1962 for all 

“urbanized areas” (UZAs). UZAs are defined by 

the U.S. Bureau of the Census as contiguous areas 

of urban settlement with a population of at least 

50,000 and a density of at least 1,000 persons per 

square mile. Some MPO-like organizations had 

existed since the 1950s to prepare special metropolitan transportation studies under the auspices of 

state highway agencies in major areas such as 

Chicago, Detroit, New York, and Philadelphia. 

They provided the models followed by MPOs 

across the country. 

Number, Size, and Shape of MPOs 

UZAs do not necessarily follow political 

boundaries. The Census Bureau reviews and 

adjusts the boundaries after each decennial census, 

creating new UZAs when urban settlements grow 

above the 50,000 population threshold and decommissioning others. Thus, the number, size, and 

shape of MPOs is subject to the dynamics of population growth and decline. By this process, the 

number of MPOs has grown from 2 18 in 1972 to 

339 today.2 

About 70 MPOs were added following the 

1980 Census, and about 12 new MPOs resulted 

from the creation of 33 new UZAs following the 

1990 Census. 

As growth occurs, UZAs sometimes overrun 

the boundaries of MPOs or become so large that 

state and local officials choose more than one MPO 

to serve the area. Presently, 14 contiguous urbanized areas within a single state have two or more 

MPOs. Conversely, 36 MPOs serve multiple 

UZAs. 

Of the 396 UZAs, 54 cross state lines; 44 are 

served by a single MPO and the others by more 

than one MPO. Examples include Chicago, Memphis, New York, and Portland (Oregodwashington). Of the 270 metropolitan areas designated by 

the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 37 

cross state lines. 

The discrepancy between the number of 

interstate metropolitan areas and the interstate 

UZAs occurs because some UZAs are not part of a 

metropolitan area, some UZAs cross state lines 

when the corresponding metropolitan area does 

not, and some interstate UZAs are in two metropolitan areas. The number of interstate MPOs does not 

match either the interstate UZAs or interstate metropolitan areas because MPOs may cover multiple, 

partial, or whole areas. 

This tangled web of boundaries took on new 

dimensions with enactment of ISTEA, which 

requires that MPO boundaries encompass the area 

of expected urbanization over the next 20 years and 

the air quality region if it is in non-attainment. In 

addition, it is appropriate under federal law for an 

MPO to encompass the entire metropolitan area if 

the local governments and the governor agree. 

However, it is not required that these areas be covered by a single MPO. Thus, simplification of 

boundaries and the use of fewer MPOs is authorized, but not required. 

If more than one MPO serves a single area, 

ISTEA requires coordination between them. The 

same requirement applies to two or more state 

departments of transportation (SDOTs) in an interstate metropolitan area. 

33 
Legal Authority 

Originally, all MPOs were treated alike under 

federal laws and regulations. In the mid-l980s, 

when funding for metropolitan planning was being 

stretched thin, preference for funding was given to 

the MPOs with populations of 200,000 or more. 

ISTEA added air quality attainment and non-attainment as another legal distinction, without regard to 

population size. Thus, there now are four types of 

MPOs with different powers. These distinctions are 

shown in Table I. 

Although most discussions about MPO 

authority and powers focus on federal legislation 

and regulations, state law and interstate compacts 

can and do specifL additional characteristics of the 

MPO organizations. For example, some MPOs 

allocate non-federal transportation funds under the 

provisions of state law (California), and some 

MPOs may have limited growth management and 

land use planning roles or relationships under state 

law (Florida, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington). In a few cases, these state-granted powers are 

more far-reaching than the federal authority. 

ISTEA recognizes the validity of state law in specifying some organizational provisions for MPOs. 

These state-generated distinctions reflect differences in political philosophies and political cultures that are distributed variously across the 

country. 

Practical Considerations 

MPOs generally have four basic components: 

(1) A policymaking board that involves elected officials from the local governments in 

the metropolitan area and others; 

(2) A technical committee that brings together staff representatives of the federal, 

state, and local transportation and transportation-related agencies that have a role 

in ISTEA planning; 

(3) An MPO staffing arrangement; and 

(4) A public involvement mechanism. 

A typical configuration of these components is portrayed in Figure I, but no two MPO processes are 

exactly alike. 

Federal law and regulations allow great latitude in locating MPO staff. Although many of the 

older MPOs were established under the wing of a 

state highway department, most now have a local 

government-based organizational structure. In the 

1970s, about 75 percent of MPOs were staffed by 

metropolitan regional councils, which are intergovernmental advisory planning bodies usually governed by local elected officials appointed on the 

basis of one government, one vote (see Table 2). 

The councils generally have independent staffs and 

deal with other program areas in addition to transportation. 

Many new small MPOs have been created, 

however, and some older MPOs have separated 

from their regional councils. Now, only about 44 

percent of all MPOs are staffed by regional councils. The others are staffed by individual cities, 

counties, or city-county planning commissions, or 

they are independent entities having only MPO 

responsibilities. Very few are staffed by the SDOT. 

The strength of MF'Os has been the provision 

of areawide analysis for highway and transit system planning. Most organizations have not been 

noted for studies of freight or intermodal facilities, 

their political decisionmaking capacity, or their 

control of transportation implementation funds. 

The roles of MPOs also are determined by: 

Their relationship to the SDOT; 

The number of local governments in the 

region; 

The presence of an international border; 

The age and maturity of the MPO; 

The population growth rate (1980-1990) 

and economic climate; and 

The number and types of transportation 

modes in the region. 

These factors are recognized in the ACIR 

sample, although not always by perfect indicators. 

For example, the proxy for relationship to the 

SDOT is the percentage of highway mileage in the 

state controlled by the state (see Table 3). The reasoning is that a state that owns more of the highways is likely to be more dominant. 

34 
Table I 

STATUS AND POWERS OF MPOS UNDER THE INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1991 

Regional Council or Commission 81 37.2 205 82.36 152 58.9 179 54.6 161 48 

City, County, or Joint 38 17.4 44 17.1 83 25.3 96 28 

City (38) (11) 

County (34) (10) 

Independent 7 3.2 30 12.1 54 20.9 52 15.8 74 22 

State 92 42.2 14 5.6 8 3.1 14 4.3 8 2 

I TOTAL 218 100 249 100 258 100 328 100 339 100 

1 ACIR, Toward More Balanced Transportation (Washington, DC, 1975), pp. 82-83. 

2 U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban System Study (Washington, DC, December 1976), p. 45. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Metropolitan Planning Organrzatrom andSfute Tramporfation Agencies: Direclory (Washington, DC, June 1980). 

MPO Mailing List, supplied by U.S. Department of Transportation, September 26, 1983. 

Unpublished ACIR research, 1993. 

Regional Councils accounted for about 75% of all MPOs at their peak in the mid 1970s. See ACIR, Toward More Balanced Tramporfation. 

Classes of MPOs 

1. Standard Large MF'O 

2. Large MPO 

Nonattainment area 

3. Small MPO 

Nonattainment area 

4. Standard Small MPO 

Population 

200,000+ 200,000- 

148 

58 

98 

40 

Ozone or CO 

Nonattainment 

Area 

58 

98 

Powers 

Block Projects Projects Priority Congestion 

Grant Constrained Selected for Planning & Air Quality 

by Formula by CAA by MPO Funds Project Funds 

148 148 148 

58 58 58 58 58 

98 98 98 98 

Planning Required 

Full Abbreviated 

148 

58 

98 

40 

TOTALS 206 138 156 206 156 304 304 156 304 40 

Note: Table 1 is about two years old, so the numbers are slightly out of date. For example, it shows about five more MPOs than the most current MPO directory from FHWA, and perhaps 10-20 

more non-attainment areas than there are now. Official updates of these figures are not available. 

Source: Federal Highway Administration. 

w 

ul 

Table 2 

MPO STAFFING ARRANGEMENTS 
w 

m 

Figure I 

TYPICAL PARTICIPANTS IN THE MPO PROCESS 

City-County Agencies 

FHWA~ 

Regional 

CounciI 

A 

Notes: 

1 No two MPO processes are alike. 

2 Can be separate organization; a unit located in a city, county, or state government; or a regional council. 

3 An intergovernmental decisionmaking body established by a formal agreement. 

4 Where it exits. 

5 Where appropriate. 

6 The federal agencies may have other linkages to the MPO process. 
Table 3 

STATE ADMINISTRATION OF NON-FEDERAL HIGHWAYS 

Ratio of 

State-Controlled 

Mileage to 

State" State-Controlled Mileage Total Mileage Less Federal Net State-Loeal Net State-Local 

West Virginia 

Delaware 

Virginia 

North Carolina 

South Carolina 

Alaska 

Kentucky 

Pennsylvania 

Maine 

Louisiana 

New Hampshire 

Missouri 

Texas 

Washington 

Hawaii 

Arkansas 

Oregon 

New Mexico 

Vermont 

Connecticut 

Wyoming 

Maryland 

Rhode Island 

Ohio 

Utah 

Tennessee 

Nevada 

Georgia 

Arizona 

New York 

Mississippi 

Idaho 

Colorado 

Illinois 

California 

Indiana 

Oklahoma 

Wisconsin 

North Dakota 

Nebraska 

Montana 

Florida 

Alabama 

Minnesota 

Massachusetts 

South Dakota 

New Jersey 

Iowa 

Michigan 

Kansas 

U.S. Average 

31,858 

4,887 

56,44 1 

77,774 

41,638 

5,849 

27,584 

44,42 1 

8,545 

16,647 

4,027 

32,357 

76,843 

18,880 

1,027 

16,208 

11,273 

I 1,636 

2,835 

3,972 

6,66 1 

5,423 

1,136 

20,527 

5,799 

14,516 

5,298 

17,838 

6,130 

16,404 

10,468 

5,122 

9,244 

17,369 

18,450 

11,294 

13,049 

12,445 

7,399 

10,256 

6,200 

11,870 

3,563 

7,904 

3,563 

7,904 

3,247 

10,105 

9,632 

10,672 

800,237 

34,919 

5,524 

68,429 

95,582 

64,129 

13,634 

71,765 

116,788 

22,481 

58,629 

14,913 

12 1,424 

293,3 17 

79,413 

4,106 

77,162 

95,237 

61,195 

14,145 

20,280 

39,022 

29,172 

6,120 

113,823 

43,270 

85,144 

45,657 

110,790 

55,969 

111,686 

72,795 

58,588 

78,043 

136,402 

168,378 

92,054 

112,432 

110,371 

66,648 

92,686 

70,357 

1 10,640 

34,323 

129,622 

34,323 

83,299 

34,286 

112,586 

117,520 

133,655 

3,901,715 

650 

3 

2,026 

2,026 

602 

2,588 

49 1 

992 

170 

626 

136 

563 

953 

7,204 

105 

1,628 

41,870 

4,450 

80 

4 

4,116 

435 

32 

9,729 

5 72 

13,832 

1,097 

14,461 

779 

23,121 

7,123 

172 

18,524 

88 

962 

83 1 

137 

14,248 

106 

94 1 

1,627 

117 

1,969 

41 

121 

182,412 

34,269 

5,521 

66,403 

93,556 

63,527 

11,046 

7 1,274 

115,796 

22,3 11 

58,003 

14,777 

120,861 

292,364 

72,209 

4,OO 1 

75,534 

53,367 

56,745 

14,065 

20,276 

34,906 

28,737 

6,120 

113,791 

33,541 

84,572 

31,825 

109,693 

41,508 

111,686 

72,016 

35,467 

70,920 

136,230 

149,854 

92,054 

112,344 

109,409 

65,817 

92,549 

56,109 

11 0,534 

33,382 

127,995 

34,206 

81,330 

34,245 

112,465 

117,520 

133,655 

3,719,303 

92.96% 

88.52% 

85.00% 

83.13% 

65.54% 

52.95% 

38.70% 

38.36% 

38.30% 

28.7OYo 

27.25% 

26.77% 

26.28% 

26.15% 

25.67% 

21.46% 

21.12% 

20.51% 

20.16% 

19.59% 

19.08% 

18.87% 

18.56% 

18.04% 

17.29% 

17.16% 

16.65% 

16.26Yo 

14.77% 

14.69% 

14.54% 

13.03% 

12.31% 

12.27% 

11.62% 

11.37% 

11.24% 

11.08% 

11.05% 

10.74% 

10.67% 

10.43% 

10.42% 

9.72% 

14.44% 

12.75% 

9.48% 

8.99% 

7.98% 

8.20% 

21.52% 

'States are listed in descending order of ratio of state-controlled mileage to net state-local mileage 

Source: FHWA, Highway Statistics, 1992. 

37 
The Sample of MPOs 

The 12 metropolitan areas and 18 MPOs in 

the ACIR sample and their characteristics are listed 

in Table 4 (pages 40-41). The location of the 12 

areas in relation to state lines and the standard federal regions is shown in Figure 2. 

The sample represents: 

4 consolidated metropolitan areas, 7 regular 

metropolitan areas, and 1 urbanized area in 

a non-metropolitan area; 

9 of the 10 standard federal regions; 

4 areas with multiple MPOs; 

9 TMAs and 3 non-TMAs; 

Populations ranging from 62,000 to many 

millions; 

Population changes ranging from a slight 

loss to fairly rapid growth; 

State highway ownership ranging from 85 

percent to about 8 percent; 

3 MPOs created after the 1980 Census, and 

1 after the 1990 Census; 

2 state-staffed MPOs, 3 independent, 8 

regional council, and 5 local government; 

1 MPO on an international border, 2 interstate MPOs, 3 interstate areas with multiple 

MPOs, and a single-state area with multiple 

MPOs; 

4 metropolitan areas with rail transit; 

State economic climates ranging from 

grades of B to D; 

Air quality areas that are attainment, nonattainment, and maintenance; 

About equal numbers of eastern, western, 

sunbelt, and frostbelt areas; 

MPOs with weighted voting as well as 

underrepresentation and overrepresentation 

of the central city; and 

MPOs having from 3 to 138 general local 

governments within the planning area 

boundary. 

In short, this sample reflects the measurable 

characteristics of the MPO universe as completely 

as possible with such a small number of cases. 

Nevertheless, the findings in Chapter 3 should not 

be considered to be a scientifically validated representation of the whole universe of MPOs. There 

were not enough cases in the sample, and there was 

no attempt to weight the cases proportionately to 

the composition of the universe. 

Notes 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway 

Administration, Directory of Metropolitan Planning Organizalions (Washington, DC, 1993). 

Bruce D. McDowell, “The Metropolitan Planning Organization Role in the 1980s,” Journal of Advanced Transportation 

18 (1984): 125-133; McDowell and Sheldon M. Edner, “Reinventing Metropolitan and State Institutions for Surface Transportation Planning,” in National Research Council, TRB, 

Transportation Research Circular 406, Transportation Planning, Programming, and Finance (Washington, DC, April 

1993), pp. 64-74. 

38 
39 
Table 4 

CASE STUDY LIST-MPOS AND THEIR CHARACTERISTICS 

Study Areas 

Name-State1 

East (E) 

or 

TYPe West (W) Frostbelt (F) Pop in Pop 

Metro Federal TMA ofMiss. or MPO Change 

Area Region ~-~ Status River Sunbelt (S) (000) 1980-902 ~~~~ 

New York, NY/NJ CMSA 2 X E F 

New York Metropolitan Transportation Council 11,100 Slow 

North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority 5,800 Rapid 

Norfolk, VA (P) MSA 3 X E S 

Hampton Roads Planning District Commission 1,320 Rapid 

Tampa, FL MSA 4 X E S 

Hillsborough Co. Metropolitan Planning Org. 834 Rapid 

Pasco Co. Metropolitan Planning Organization 281 Rapid 

Pinellas Co. Metropolitan Planning Organization 852 Rapid 

Cincinnati, OH- KY-IN CMSA 46 X E F 

OK1 Regional Council of Governments 1,430 Slow 

Chicago, IL-IN- WI CMSA 5 X E F 

~~_______

Chicago Area Transportation Study 

Northwest Indiana Regional Planning Commission 

Southeast Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission 

7,500 Slow 

1,900 Slow 

700 Decline 

Holland, MI MSA 5 

Macatawa Area Coordinating Council 

Santa Fe, NM MSA 6 X W S 

Kansas CiQ, KS-MO (P) MSA 7 X w F 

Cheyenne, WY UZA 8 W F 

Santa Fe Metropolitan Planning Organization 63 Rapid 

Mid-America Regional Council 1,275 Rapid 

Cheyenne Metropolitan Planning Organization 62 Slow 

San Diego, CA MSA 9 X W S 

San Diego Association of Governments 2,348 Rapid 

Boise, ID MSA 10 W F 

ADA Planning Association 168 Rapid 

PortlancUVancouvel; OR- WA CMSA 10 X W F 

Southwest Washington Regional 238 Rapid 

Metropolitan Service District 1,277 Rapid 

Transportation Council 

* (P) denotes those states that have participated in the assistance program offered by the Surface Transportation Policy Project. 

2 Growth was rapid if the change in population between 1980 and 1990 was greater than 1.1, slow if less than 1.1, declining if less 

than 1.0. 

40 
Table 4 (continued) 

State DOT Date MPO Metro Area is Metro Area Statewide Air Central Number 

Control of Created Staffing4 Interstate (I) Has Economic Quality6 City General 

Highway or Rail (R) Climate Voting Govts. 

Mileage3 Single state (S) Transit (Grade)5 Index’ 

0.16 138 

Low pre- 1980 State I R N Y - C N 

Low pre-1980 I I R N J-B N 

High pre-1980 RC S B N 

11 

Low pre- 1980 Local S 

Low pre-1980 Local S 

Low 1980 Local S 

~ 

1.88-1.29 15 

C N 

N 

A 

Low pre-1980 RC I 

O H -C NA 77 

K Y - D N 

.I0 - .I1 128 

Low pre-1980 State I R IL- B N 

Low pre-1980 RC I R I N - D N 

Low pre-1980 RC I W I-B N 

Low 1990 I S 

7 

C N 

Low 1980 Local S 

3 

C A 

Medium pre-1980 RC I 

KS- B NA (W) 46 

M O -C M 

Low 1980 Local S C A 

3 

(W) 19 

Low pre-1980 RC S8 R C N 

4 

Low pre-1980 RC S B N 

Medium pre-1980 I I R B N 

NA-0.50 12 

Low pre-1980 RC I R B N 

3 State control of highway miles: 0-25% is low, 25-50% is medium, and 51-100% is high. 

I = Independent; RC = Regional Council, Local = City or County or both; S = State 

Adapted from The 1994 Development Report Curdfor the States, Eighth Edition (Washington, DC, Corporation for Enterprise Development, 1994). 

6 Air quality was nonattainment even if the area was in nonattainment for only one pollutant. N = Nonattainment, A = Attainment, M = Maintenance. 

7 Index of Central City Voting Power on MPOs, where an index of 1.00 means a voting strength proportionate to the central 

city’s population ratio to the metropolitan area population. ‘W’ indicates weighted voting. * San Diego is a single-state MPO, but is unusual in that it shares a border with Mexico. 

41 
42 
CHAPTER 3 

THE CAPACITY-BUILDING NEEDS OF MPOS: 

OBSERVATIONS FROM THE FIELD 

This chapter summarizes Observations from 

the field research in 18 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) providing federally required 

transportation planning in the 12 representative 

metropolitan areas selected for this study. The 

research consisted of approximately 240 interviews 

(including a wide range of individuals who were 

involved in or familiar with each MPO), and examination of key MPO documents. A promise of 

anonymity was given to encourage frank responses. 

Three principal lines of questioning were pursued: 

1. What changes have been made in the 

MPO process to comply with the new 

requirements of the Intermodal Surface 

Transportation Efficiency Act of I991 

(ISTEA)? 

2. What difficulties have been encountered 

in trying to comply with ISTEA? 

3. What types of help does the MPO need to 

respond to the ISTEA innovations more 

effectively? 

The research findings are reported in this 

chapter. The answers are the perceptions of the 

interview respondents, not necessarily fact. 

The methodology for the field work is 

described in Appendix A. 

Changes in MPO Programs 

Respondents credited ISTEA with bringing 

positive change to every MPO (see Table I). 

Following are representative observations 

and comments collected about each of the changes. 

Public Involvement 

Many respondents believed that ISTEA had 

opened the process and increased the outreach 

activities of the MPO. In some cases, public 

Table 1 

POSITIVE CHANGES BROUGHT BY ISTEA 

Changes M 

No. 

Increased Public Involvement 14 

Air Quality Work 10 

Better Intergovernmental Coordination 10 

Better SDOT/MPO Relationships 8 

Newhcreased Attention 7 

to Intermodal Issues 

New/Increased Attention 6 

to Long-Range Planning 

Ds 

% 

78% 

56 

56 

44 

39 

33 

involvement has become an MPO activity only 

since ISTEA was enacted. In other cases, minority 

groups, businesses, and other stakeholders who had 

not been involved are participating now. A greater 

awareness of diverse viewpoints is developing. 

Some parts of the planning process are being 

delayed to offer fuller opportunities for public participation, and personnel have been added to pursue 

this work. New techniques are being used in some 

cases. The MPO staff is perceived to be willing to 

listen. There is a growing feeling that public 

involvement may make a difference. 

Air Quality 

For affected areas, the perception is that air 

quality requirements have become a very high 

political and technical priority. They consume 

much of the planning budget and program, but “end 

the hesitancy” to work together regionally on this 

issue. Some MPOs are seeking memoranda of 

agreement with communities outside their boundaries, but within the air quality non-attainment 

region. Specific levels of non-attainment receive 

great attention. Even a reclassification to “attainment” status is a concern because of the need to 

43 
continue vigorous air quality planning while losing 

federal finding for it. 

Intergovernmental Coordination 

ISTEA has brought new commitment by 

many local public officials to work together regionally and with the SDOT, and with state air quality 

officials. This commitment is stretching across 

state lines and helping to bridge the central city vs. 

suburb chasm in some instances. Public officials 

are attending MPO meetings more frequently and 

taking the process more seriously. “Corridor planning councils” have been created by neighboring 

communities to integrate land use and transportation policies. Project selection processes also are 

bringing local governments together. Still, some 

contentious issues remain unresolved-such as city 

annexation of county territory. 

MPO/SDOT Relations 

The mutual dependencies between the MPO 

and SDOT have brought them into much closer 

contact. In some cases, they are supporting each 

other’s programs. (It should be noted, however, that 

a smaller number of MPOs reported difficulties in 

this relationship. See a later section of this chapter.) 

Intermodal Planning 

In many areas, ISTEA has given alternatives 

to the automobile a big boost-not just transit, but 

also pedestrian, bike, park and ride, shuttle, railroad, trail, and other modes, as well as connecting 

facilities. Air quality considerations are an important part of this. The Chamber of Commerce has 

gotten involved in the issue of commuter alternatives. ISTEA has provided a convenient vehicle for 

expressing these emerging community priorities. 

Long-Range Planning 

ISTEA’s long-range planning requirement 

has directed more energy into consideration of the 

region’s future economy and quality of life. Excessive focus on highway building and the short-term 

TIP has been moderated. 

Conclusion 

ISTEA appears to be having much of its 

intended effect in some respects, while other objectives do not appear to be receiving as much attention as might have been expected. 

Difficulties Encountered by MPOs 

In responding to ISTEA provisions, every 

MPO in the sample (except the one created after 

ISTEA was enacted) has encountered one or more 

new difficulties serious enough for them to mention in the interviews (see Table 2). 

Following are summaries of representative 

comments about these difficulties. 

Regulatory and Workload Burdens 

In some ways, ISTEA was seen by a number 

of interviewees as a step backward. The simpler 

MPO process, which had been working fairly 

smoothly, now is felt to be more complex and less 

clear, and it takes longer to plan and get projects 

approved. Some MPOs believe they must start their 

planning processes again under ISTEA, and staff 

has not expanded commensurate with the new 

workload. 

New requirements for environmental analysis, enhancements, and major (corridor) investment 

analysis were reported to have slowed or halted 

many projects that had been ready to go. The perception is that there is more paperwork and less 

flexibility. It is hard to keep up with the new regulations. 

In addition, it was felt that the public involvement process takes a lot more time and effort. 

Some smaller MPOs are bogged down in meeting 

~ 

Table 2 

DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED BY MPOs 

BECAUSE OF ZSTEA 

MPOs 

Difficulties 

Increased Regulatory Burden 94% 

and Workload 

Unachievable Expectations 

Uncoordinated Deadlines 

Disrupted Relationships within MF’O 

Strained Relationship with State DOT 

44 
detailed requirements more suitable for larger organizations, leaving less time to consider broader 

strategic choices about matters such as how to meet 

travel demands. 

Federal responses to questions too frequently 

were felt to be no more helpful than reading the 

regulations, and sometimes they produced conflicting interpretations. There is confusion about the 

requirements for fiscally constraining the plans and 

TIPS. It is not clear what is and what is not fundable. FTA and FHWA regulations, schedules, and 

interpretations differ. This is especially bothersome 

when FHWA funds are transferred into transit programs where they are spent under different rules. 

FTA personnel are viewed as being too far away, 

too inaccessible, and too ill-equipped to be helpful. 

FAA does not recognize the linkages between airport planning and surface transportation. Differences with EPA also were reported to be 

bothersome. 

Unachievabfe Expectations 

The heightened expectations brought by 

ISTEA are contagious, but the perception is that 

funding and staffing have not increased appreciably and the expectations cannot be met. There is 

anxiety that the local elected officials in the MPOs 

will become frustrated and disillusioned by the gap 

between promise and performance. 

Uncoordinated Deadlines 

Deadlines for MPO planning (I) are too 

close, (2) are ahead of deadlines for the state planning they must be based on, (3) do not allow for 

local political transitions over which the MPO has 

no control, and (4) do not provide enough time to 

prepare well all the new types of products and 

processes required. To make matters worse, the 

federal regulations were issued too late. MPO products are being forced to be approved before they 

are ready. 

Disrupted Relationships within the MPO 

Delicate balances of cooperation in some 

MPOs have been upset by ISTEA. Transit interests 

have been encouraged in some areas to be too 

aggressive too quickly, while the additional funding promised by ISTEA remains unavailable. Some 

small communities in large MPOs feel they have 

little effective input to the MPO process. 

Strained Relationships with the State DOT 

Some SDOTs were reported to be reluctant to 

provide financial information to the MPO or to 

open the funding allocation process. In such cases, 

the MPO must set its priorities in a vacuum and 

then wait for the SDOT to determine which funding category will pay for them. Some SDOTs also 

were reported to be too slow in reviewing MPO 

proposals and draft products. Some SDOTs remain 

predominantly highway oriented. Many MPOs do 

not sense a feeling of equal partnership with their 

SDOT. 

Types of Help Requested by MPOs 

Interviews with a broad range of persons 

identified 58 separate types of requested help. 

These are listed in Table 3, which also shows the 

number ofMP0.s mentioning them. The list is in 

rank order. On average, each MPO asked for 

almost 15 types of assistance. 

For ease of analysis, the 58 types of help were 

grouped into the following five major categories or 

techniques and also into eight general topics (listed 

later): 

1. Research and information 

2. Regulatory relief 

3. Training 

4. Greater resources 

5. Technical assistance (on-site) 

Of the 18 MPOs visited, 13 requested help in 

all five categories. The other five MPOs wanted 

help in four of the five categories. Three MPOs did 

not mention on-site technical assistance, and two 

did not mention greater resources. 

The types of help requested are cross-tabulated in Table 4 by the eight topics on which help is 

needed and the five “categories” of techniques by 

which assistance would be provided. The largest 

number of types of help were requested in the 

research and information and training categories. 

The topics drawing on the largest number of types 

of help are planning strategies and methods, and 

45 
Table 3 

TYPES OF HELP REQUESTED BY MPOs: RANK ORDER 

Number of MPOs 

Rank and Type of Help Requesting 

1. Clearer, more timely federal regulations. ............................................................ 13 

2. ISTEA education for citizens and elected officials, ... 

4. Flexibility to synchronize ISTEA and local deadlines . 5. 

6. Better coordination among federal agencies. ........ 7. 

8. Research and information about management systems ................................................. .9 

9. “Best Practices” information m ...................................... 9 

...................................... 8 

3. Increased funds for projects (the expectations problem) ......... 

Training for public participation. ...... 

Facilitation of flexible funding ........ 

17. Training in transportation impact analysis for the metropolitan pl 

20. Better coordination between federal and state agencies 

22. Understanding and justifying use of management systems ....... 23. Training in the use of analytic tools such as GIS and forecasting .......................................... 5 

24. IncreasedMPOstaff ............................................................................. 4 

25. Training in corridor investment analysis. . ................................................. 4 

............................................... 4 

29. Research in public participation ................................................................... .4 

26. Technical assistance in achieving interstat 

27. Research in fiscally constraining TIP ....... 

28. Research in enhancements (related to NEPA r 

....................... 

................................................. 3 

42. Training in data collection techniques 

es ................................................................. 

1 Total number of requests. ....... 

46 
P 

4 

Table 4 

HELP REQUESTED BY MPOS 

Types of Help4 and Categories of Help Requested5 Totals 

Research and Regulatory Greater Technical Types of # of MPO 

Topics Addressed Information Relief Training Resources Assistance Help Categories Requests 

Intergovernmental Coordination/ 

Communication 

Data and Analysis’ 

Planning Strategies and Methods2 

Funding Process 

Public Involvement 

Financial Constraint 

Implementation Techniques3 

Prioritizing Projects 

5 (45) 3 (17) 9 

Total Types of Help 17 8 16 4 10 55 6 

Total MPO Requests (42) (44) (64) (21) (27) 

Includes modeling, transportation impact analysis, data collection, analytic tools, and corridor investment analysis. 

Includes transportatiodland use linkage, air quality strategies, abbreviated planning, freight planning, long-range planning, enhancements, management systems, 

and intermodal planning. 

Includes right-of-way preservation, legal liabilities, and pavement technology. 

“Types of Help” are the 58 numbered items in Table 3. 

“Categories of Help” are the 5 subheadings of columns in this section of the table. 

Does not total to 58 (as in Table 3) because three types of help requested were too general to be allocated to the “ Topics” addressed in this table. 

Numbers in parentheses represent the number of separate MPO requests for help of all types on this topic in this category. 
data and quantitative analysis. When all the 

requests are added together, the topics fall in the 

following rank order: 

1. Intergovernmental coordination; 

2. Data and quantitative analysis; 

3. Planning strategies and methods; 

4. The funding process; 

5. Public involvement; 

6. The requirement to financially constrain 

the TIPS and long-range plans; 

7. Implementation techniques; and 

8. Prioritizing projects in the TIP 

Table 5 shows how the specific requests for 

help were clustered into these eight “topics.” Three 

of the 58 requests were too general to be assigned 

to one of these clusters. 

Following are the summary comments from 

the MPOs concerning the help they need on the 

eight major substantive topics listed above. 

Intergovernmental Coordination 

The types of assistance requested to improve 

intergovernmental coordination fell into three categories-regulatory relief, technical assistance, and 

to a much lesser extent, training. 

In the regulatory relief category, the requests 

included ( 1) sufficient guidance on expectations 

and enforcement; (2) timely regulations in plain 

Box 25 

TIMING OF MAJOR LAWS AND REGULATIONS 

November 15, 1990 

December 18, 1991 

April 6, 1992 

May 28, 1992 

June 3, 1992 

January 3, 1993 

March 2, 1993 

March 2, 1993 

March 2, 1993 

October 28, 1993 

November 30, 1993 

December 1, 1993 

October 1, 1994 

December 18, 1994 

Clean Air Act Amendments enacted 

ISTEA signed into law 

Metropolitan Planning Interim Guidance issued 

Statewide Planning Interim Guidance issued 

Management Systems Advanced 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published 

U.S. EPA Conformity Rule Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking published 

Metropolitan Planning Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking published 

Statewide Planning Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published 

Management Systems Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published 

Combined Statewide and Metropolitan Planning Final Rule Published 

U.S. EPA Conformity Final Rule 

published 

Management Systems Interim Final 

Rule published 

Compliance with Metropolitan Planning Final Rule by Non-Attainment 

MPOs Required to Have Transportation Control Measures (TCMs). 

Compliance with Metropolitan Planning Final Rule by all other MPOs. 

English; (3) indexing new regulations to the ones 

they modify; (4) realistic flexibility to allow adjustFTA guidance on the implementation of the planning requirements and related activities of the manment to varying conditions (especially air quality 

compliance); (5) closer coordination between 

FHWA, FTA, and EPA so that SDOTs and MPOs 

are not saddled with the extra burdens of coordinating the federal agencies; (6) development of cornmon funding procedures for FHWA and FTA to 

ease the transfer of flexible funds; and (7) greater 

flexibility for MPOs to make their own decisions 

when there is no need for federal interference. 

As an aside, BOX 25 shows one of the reasons why many MPOs feel burdened by the federal 

regulations-ISTEA and CAAA have created a 

steady stream of new regulations (proposed, final, 

and interim). The timeline shown represents only 

the major steps in the development of FHWA and 

agement systems and conformity requirements. 

In addition, the FHWA Electronic Bulletin 

Board has provided ongoing publication of answers 

to individual questions. Further, some significant 

guidance has been issued, e.g., Planning Certification Procedures, April 28, 1994; Major Investment 

Studies, August 19, 1994; and Public Involvement, 

December 29, 1994. 

Given the “great expectations” surrounding 

the changes associated with ISTEA, the fact that it 

took almost two years after the passage of ISTEA 

for key regulations to be issued caused some 

observers to despair and others to applaud. Those 

who despaired lamented the tardiness of federal 

48 
Table 5 

CROSSWALK BETWEEN 58 TYPES OF HELP AND 8 TOPICS 

Intergovernmental Coordination1 

Communication 

Clearer, more tjmeJy federal regulations. 

Flexibility to synchronize ISTEA and local 

Technical assistance in achieving interstate 

Better coordination among federal agencies. 

Technical assistance in intergovernmental 

Better coordination between federal and state 

Training in conflict resolution. 

More flexible federal regulations in general. 

Quicker federal feedback on MPO plans and 

deadlines. 

coordination. 

coordination. 

agencies. 

products. 

Planning Strategies and Methods 

Training in making transportation/land use 

Research in making transportationAand use 

Research in air quality compliance strategies. 

Training in management systems. 

Understanding and justifying use of manageResearch and information about management 

Training in preparing abbreviated plans. 

Technical assistance with freight planning. 

Technical assistance with long-range planning. 

Research in enhancements (related to NEPA 

Technical assistance with enhancements. 

Research in intermodal planning. 

link. 

link. 

ment systems. 

systems. 

requirements). 

Financial Constraint 

Understanding and justifying the constrained 

Research in fiscally constraining TIP. 

Training in fiscally constraining TIP. 

Technical assistance with fiscally constraining 

TIP requirement. 

TIP. 

Prioritizing Projects 

Training in ranking and prioritizing TIP projResearch in ranking and prioritizing TIP proj- ects. 

ects. 

Research in comparing highway and non-highTraining in comparing highway and non-highTechnical assistance with comparing highway 

way alternatives. 

way alternatives. 

and non-highway alternatives. 

Data and Quantitative Analysis 

Research to provide better models 

Training in transportation impact analysis. 

Research in transportation impact analysis. 

Data from outside sources. 

Training in data collection techniques. 

Training in use of analytic tools such as GIS 

Research in analytic tools such as GIS and 

Training in corridor investment analysis. 

Research in corridor investment analysis. 

Training in modeling. 

and forecasting. 

forecasting. 

Funding Process 

Facilitation of flexible funding. 

Increased funds for projects (the expectations 

Increased MPO staff. 

Increased funds for planning. 

Increased Ch4AQ funds. 

Implementation Techniques 

Research in pavement technologies. 

Research in legal liabilities. 

Training in legal liabilities. 

Research in right-of-way preservation. 

Training in right-of-way preservation. 

Technical assistance in right-of-way preservaproblem). 

tion. 

Public Involvement 

Training for public participation. 

Research in public participation. 

Technical assistance with public participation. 

ISTEA education for citizens and elected offi- cials. 

The following three types of help were too gen- eral to be assigned to the categories above: 

“Best Practices” information mechanism 

(clearinghouse). 

More training opportunities for staff. 

Better state guidance for MPOs. 
guidance. Those who were happy felt empowered 

by the freedom inherent in the lack of constraining 

federal rules. 

It also should be noted that the elections of 

1992 significantly slowed the development of rules 

and caused some change in substance. 

In the technical assistance category, the 

requested federal help included (I) special handson encouragement to get adjoining states in interstate metropolitan areas to work together 

(including an interagency federal team to work 

with the state and metropolitan agencies to ensure 

coordination, with sensitivity to the unique obstacles faced, and extra time for coordination), and (2) 

help in reconciling state and metropolitan project 

priorities. 

Another form of technical assistance requested is to create better feedback mechanisms for 

MPO plans and other products. Continuous feedback would help avoid unexpected conflicts among 

stakeholders at a late stage in the process when it is 

difficult to resolve them within the time and budget 

remaining. Suggestions were made that performance criteria and measures should be developed 

to guide these reviews, and “excellence teams” 

should be used to critique and peer-review MPO 

products and processes. Such teams could be especially helpful in providing assistance when a new 

process is gearing up, or when the MPO needs to 

get over a “rough patch.” A more proactive role by 

the federal agencies also was suggested. 

Training was requested in the politics and 

mechanisms of joint intergovernmental efforts 

(including negotiating intergovernmental agreements and resolving conflicts). ISTEA has intensified the need to consider issues of boundaries, 

governing board and committee memberships, 

transit vs. highway priorities, air quality conformance vs. pressures for community and economic 

development, and competition among communities 

for transportation projects. The requested training 

could take the form of assessing interests and 

options, and finding a “best fit” solution that is 

defensible and reasonable. 

Data and Quantitative Analysis 

Better models and better training were 

requested clearly by most MPOs. The comments 

suggested that sound and acceptable models should 

be sensitive to the effects of varying strategies and 

scenarios. Current models do not include ferry, 

pedestrian, bicycle, and other modes, nor do they 

deal with transportation control measures or energy 

conservation issues. Special attention needs to be 

given to LnKing air quality models to travel forecasting models, and training MPO staffs to use 

them. 

Simple manuals are badly needed to explain 

the models and their outputs to citizens and public 

officials. Training in the use of models needs to be 

geared to MPO staffs of varying sizes, resources, 

and levels of expertise. 

Analytical tools like geographic information 

systems (GIS) also were requested, along with better training. In addition, research was requested to 

improve the tools for transportation impact analysis-including project impact analysis, corridor 

impact analysis, major investment analysis, energy, 

air quality, metropolitan development, life style 

changes, and economic effects. 

Another perceived need was for assistance in 

collecting increasingly complex sets of data for the 

new analyses required by ISTEA. 

Planning Strategies and Methods 

The transportation-land use link remains elusive in the view of many who were interviewed. 

They requested both research and training to help 

make this link. The training should extend to land 

use regulators in local governments. 

Research also was suggested to help define 

the six new management systems and intermodal 

planning. Congestion management systems, which 

are the responsibility of the larger MPOs, were singled out for special attention. It was suggested that 

this research consider how these systems relate to 

long-range plans and TIPS, and how they can be 

applied to the smaller MpOs. 

The 1994 NARC survey of MPOs found that 

about 5 1 percent of MPOs are preparing congestion 

management systems, 43 percent intermodal, 40 

percent transit maintenance, 23 percent safety, 18 

percent bridge maintenance, and 29 percent pavement maintenance. 

50 
Freight planning also was singled out for 

greater attention. It is highly intermodal, but not 

much practiced by MPOs. 

The enhancements program and requirements also were suggested for further study. 

Intended to improve the “livability” of transportation projects, the process of considering potentials 

to use enhancements has had the effect of slowing 

and cancelling some projects. Clarification of regulations, training, and technical assistance may be 

necessary to expedite this element of the planning 

process. 

Abbreviated planning needs to be defined 

so the smaller MPOs can begin using this technique. Shortcuts and the ability to prioritize ISTEA 

tasks over a multiyear period were requested. Once 

developed, these techniques should be made freely 

available, along with training. 

The Funding Process 

Many who were interviewed believed that 

ISTEA needs to be better funded if the flexibility it 

promises is to be realized. They also suggested that 

the different funding sources in ISTEA be made 

easier to understand and to tap, that difficulties in 

using ISTEA funds flexibly be corrected, and that 

SDOTs help MPOs have a clear understanding of 

the funds that will be available to them. 

Public Involvement 

Research was suggested to pull together and 

share practical citizen participation techniques, 

especially those that have been successful in high 

population areas. Techniques for interacting with 

the business community and other parts of the private sector also need special attention. Education 

and training efforts were suggested to spread the 

best practices. MPOs perceived a need for the services of trained citizen participation experts. 

The communications aspects of citizen participation also were perceived to need attention. 

MPOs want to know how to use the media to build 

public support. In addition, it was suggested that all 

MPO reports and other products meant for public 

consumption should be “translated” into plain English, easily understood graphics and special editions for persons with disabilities. Special attention 

should be given to translating TIPS and the outputs 

of transportation models so the average citizen can 

understand them. 

Positive outreach efforts also were suggested, 

along with a requirement that MPOs demonstrate 

that public input will be used to make a difference 

in the planning process. 

A third aspect of citizen participation that 

was mentioned is the need to train involved citizens and elected officials. Many of them have not 

been given a good understanding of ISTEA, 

CAAA, and other essential facts they need to be 

involved in the MPO process. It was suggested that 

some training opportunities for MPO staff be 

opened to qualified and interested citizens and 

elected officials, and that training opportunities be 

repeated frequently, because of the rapid turnover 

in some of these audiences. 

Federal public information programs also 

were requested to raise the general level of public 

understanding of these issues. This type of information could help put ISTEA and CAAA expectations into realistic perspective so they do not outrun 

the prospects for accomplishment. 

Financially Constraining the Plans and TIPs. 

Clearer regulations and guidance were 

requested to clarify fiscal constraints on MPO 

plans and TIPs, including examples and expanded 

opportunities to discuss what is expected of the 

MPOs and how it can be accomplished. 

Implementation Techniques 

Although right-of-way preservation is one 

of the 15 factors that must be considered by the 

MPOs, it is commonly perceived to be in violation 

of the environmental laws. Training is needed to 

differentiate this planning element from the concept of land acquisition. 

In addition, training sessions were requested 

to spell out the legal implications of MPO responsibilities. In particular, there is a concern about 

MPO board liability if the costs of TIP projects are 

underestimated. Liabilities for board actions in 

non-attainment areas also are of concern. 

Finally, continued research on superior pavement materials and pavement monitoring devices 

was requested. 

51 
Prioritizing Projects in the TIPS 

Research is needed on TIP ranking processes 

that can be adapted to several types of MPOs and 

SDOTs, and that show how the MTIPs and STIPs 

can be integrated. There is also need for simple 

publications that highlight effective processes used 

by small MPOs. 

Type of MPO Affects Help Requested 

Examining the types of MPOs that emphasized needs for different types of help yields the 

following generalizations. 

1. The eight MPOs most concerned with the 

substance of planning (research and information, training, and technical assistance) 

were the largest, oldest ones in the Frostbelt. 

2. The seven MpOs most concerned with the 

need for regulatory relief were mostly 

middle-sized, well established ones in 

both the Sunbelt and the Frostbelt. 

3. The two MPOs most concerned with the 

need for added resources were small. 

4. The MPO established since ISTEA was 

enacted saw the need for help about equally across all the categories. 

5. MPO work programs are heavily oriented 

toward air quality issues in some nonattainment areas. 

~ ~~ 

Table 6 

SOURCES OF HELP FOR MPOS 

Number Number 

Sources Using Help Wanting Help Total 

Federal 7 8 15 

State 4 6 10 

Other MPOs 1 3 4 

TRE3 2 1 3 

Universities 2 0 2 

Consultants 2 0 2 

Professional Societies 2 0 2 

National Associations 1 0 I 

State Associations 1 0 1 

TOTALS 22 I8 40 

6. Interstate MPOs have special needs for 

coordination with SDOTs. 

Sources of Help for MPOs 

The sources of help that MPOs use now and 

those they believe they should be able to count on 

more in the future are listed in Table 6. The federal 

government was mentioned most often in both categories, followed by the state and other MPOs. 

The other six sources identified were mentioned 

infrequently (this “sources” question was not 

probed deeply in some of the interviews). 

The comments on this question are summarized below. 

Federal 

Federal agencies should organize a team to 

work with the MPO to ensure coordination and 

sensitivity to the unique obstacles faced, and to 

help explain ISTEA’s practical effects and available options more effectively. 

FAA personnel need to be incorporated more 

effectively into the intermodal team. The FAA 

seems to ignore the linkages of airport planning to 

ground transportation. 

Federal representatives should participate 

more fully in MPO meetings. Their assistance 

needs to be more creative and helpful than simply 

quoting the federal regulations. 

The FTA was viewed as being too far away, 

too inaccessible, and too ill-equipped to be helpful. 

A well trained and available FTA staff could help 

to provide modal balance to the MPO process and 

to strengthen the whole team. ISTEA has brought 

FHWA and FTA closer together. 

When different federal agencies take different 

positions, it causes uncertainties. More common 

FHWA and FTA procedures for funding requests 

were thought to be needed. 

Timely advice from federal officials could 

save time and money. When they work only 

through the state, communication was perceived to 

be slower and more complicated. 

State and federal agencies often do not see 

eye to eye on environmental matters, leaving the I 

52 
MPO caught in the middle. The tendency of the 

environmental review process to say “no” to most 

local initiatives is very frustrating to the MPOs. 

EPA, FHWA, and FTA policies need to be better 

coordinated. 

The MPO perceives a decline in the number 

of practical federal research studies and informational documents that address the planning process. 

New studies were requested of ISTEA implementation topics, including examples of best practices 

and success stories. 

The recent FHWA modeling classes were 

well received, but regional and state sites for these 

classes were seen as being important to cut costs. 

The federal Local Technical Assistance Program, 

run by the state, was said to be helpful in localizing 

training opportunities. U.S. DOT’S technology 

sharing program also was perceived to be helpful. 

It was suggested that FHWA’s T2 Centers and 

FTA’s RTAP program could play a bigger role in 

providing ISTEA-related training, especially in 

management systems, GIS, new technologies, and 

simple monitoring tools. 

Also suggested were stronger federal policies 

and assistance with coordination in interstate areas, 

a conference or workshop directed specifically to 

interstate MPOs, and techniques that could be compared and discussed with federal and state staffs. 

More federal field staff were thought to be 

needed, and some should be assigned to the MPOs. 

MPOs wanted federal agencies to work closely 

with them so there will be no surprises at the end of 

the process. 

Information and education were seen as 

appropriate roles for federal assistance in building 

public understanding of the implications of ISTEA 

goals. There is foreboding that the goals of ISTEA 

and the Clean Air Act are in conflict and unattainable. More workshops and discussions were 

requested. Federal agencies need to be clear about 

how the rules will be enforced, and they must agree 

with each other. 

Traveling road shows were suggested by 

MPO policymakers. These shows should be short, 

with brief presentations by federal experts and 

opportunity for questions and discussion. 

Federal backing for improved travel data collection was seen as vital. Federal agencies also 

need to provide guidance on “abbreviated planning.” 

State 

Comments suggested that SDOTs need to be 

able to explain ISTEA effects and options, and 

should be less reluctant to give financial information or open up the funding process. Greater openness in data and funding allocations was seen as 

essential to the MPO’s TIP preparation. 

Videos and “Q and A” publications were 

suggested to help local officials understand the 

realistic possibilities for funding. Frank discussions 

of funding alternatives are needed. Local officials 

want a layman’s guide to project eligibility. 

In one case, the SDOT was seen as needing to 

be more responsive in reviewing MPO proposals 

and draft products. Development of an annual calendar would be beneficial. The role of the SDOT in 

transit planning and modeling needs to be 

addressed. 

In another case, the SDOT houses a staff person at the MPO two or three days a week, and relations were perceived to be good. 

Another MPO staff viewed the SDOT as 

being helpful, especially in sponsoring quarterly 

meetings of all the state’s MPOs to learn from each 

other. 

National pooled-funds studies by the states 

were suggested as a means of developing best practices. 

Other MPOs 

Suggestions for MPOs helping other MPOs 

included: sharing models, training sessions, 

increased communication among MPOs across the 

country, and sharing examples of processesvspecially how to prioritize funding-through conferences and publications. In a particular state, it 

would be helpful to rotate new MPO staff among 

the agencies working with the organization. 

Many MPOs wanted contact with others of 

the same size. 

53 
Other Sources of Help 

The university transportation consortium 

offers training programs and undertakes research 

projects; it should do more. The MPO has a good 

relationship with the university. 

Visiting teams should be organized to aid the 

MPO on specific problems. The resource persons 

available for this type of help also should be organized into a network of resource persons to be 

called on individually for help. Published rosters of 

resource persons would be helpful. 

Professional facilitators and peer-review 

“excellence teams” could be used to come in for a 

period of time to give hands-on assistance to the 

MPO in gearing up a process or getting it over a 

rough patch. 

Videos should be available to cover various 

obstacles as well as to help put all the pieces of 

ISTEA together. A series of technical papers also 

could be helpful in getting information to practitioners. 

A clearinghouse offering best practices and 

case studies is needed-including good plans, management systems, and modeling practices. An 

accessible and user friendly information center 

would be invaluable. Assistance should be geared 

to MPOs of varying sizes and resources. The federal government may be the proper location for this 

clearinghouse. TRB is another possibility. 

Considerable time is spent with consultants 

on preparing scopes of work and monitoring their 

work. 

In addition to looking to the SDOT for help, 

the MPO looks to commercial consultants (one of 

the most helpful sources), the quarterly meetings of 

the state association of MPOs, the Transportation 

Research Board, and the National Association of 

Regional Councils (NARC). The city and county 

planning staffs, who work with the MPO, tend to 

look to the American Planning Association, the 

Planning Advisory Service, and the Urban Land 

Institute. The transit staff tended to look to the 

regional transit association first, and then to federal 

training grants and the National Transit Institute. 

Citizens involved with the MPO get their public 

involvement experience from political campaigns, 

the League of Women Voters, environmental 

groups, and other special interest groups. 

TRB conferences, such as the one for small 

area planning, were perceived as extremely helpful, 

but only limited staff can attend these national 

events. 

54 
APPENDICES 

A - Field Work Methodology 

B - Conferences and Research 

55 
APPENDIX A 

FIELD WORK METHODOLOGY 

Purpose and Product of Research 

The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) initiated this study at the 

request of the Federal Highway Administration to 

analyze the support needs of metropolitan planning 

organizations (MPOs), improving their capacities 

to undertake expanded responsibilities under the 

Intermodal Surface Transportation Eflciency Act 

of 1991 (ISTEA). The Federal Transit Administration subsequently cosponsored the project. 

The ACIR report was planned to facilitate a 

May 1995 Transportation Research Board (TRB) 

conference on the technical assistance needs of 

MPOs. The conference is expected to provide a 

basis for U.S. DOT support for a research and technical assistance program for MPOs. 

Because a number of surveys of MPOs had 

been carried out by the National Association of 

Regional Councils and other organizations since 

the passage of ISTEA, ACIR did not conduct 

another survey. Instead, ACIR: 

1. Made maximum use of previous surveys, 

conference proceedings, and studies; 

2. Interviewed individuals knowledgeable 

about the MPOs in a representative sample 

of 12 metropolitan areas; and 

3. Prepared a report that 

Identified means by which different 

types of MPOs are meeting, and can 

meet, their responsibilities under 

ISTEA; 

Identified the perceived needs of different types of MPOs to improve their 

capacities; 

Identified the assistance that different 

types of MPOs perceived they need; 

Recommended technical assistance 

steps; and 

Recommended additional research. 

The Sample of MPO Cases 

ACIR is aware that the differences among 

MPOs affect both requirements and how well they 

are able to comply. The most significant differences in the requirements are tied to MPO status in 

attaining air quality standards and their designation 

as “transportation management areas” (TMAs). 

Differences in ability to comply with requirements may be tied, in part, to the governmental 

complexity in the metropolitan area, relationships 

with state government, the severity of transportation and air quality problems, and the structure, 

funding, and staffing of the MPO. The factors 

ACIR considered in choosing the 12 metropolitan 

areas for the case studies are listed in Table A-I. 

The 18 MPOs serving the 12 areas (see Chapter 2, Table 4) are reasonably representative of the 

MPO universe, although they are not a statistically 

Table A-1 

CRITERIA FOR CHOOSING MPO CASES 

The 12 Cases should include at least: 

1. one new “1990” MPO 

2. one new “1980 MPO 

3. one interstate MF’O 

4. one “redesignated” MPO 

5. MPOs in a multiple MPO area: single-state 

6. MPOs in a multiple MPO area: multi-state 

7. one non-attainment MPO: severe 

8. one non-attainment MPO: moderate 

9. one non-attainment MPO: marginal 

10. one previously non-attainment MPO (AQ “maintenance area”) 

11. one MPO that has significant non-transportation programs and 

responsibilities (a strong multi-purpose regional council) 

12. one very large MPO (with rail transit) 

The total group should represent MPOs with diversity of 

a. population size 

b. geographic location 

c. economic climate 

d. growthho-growth proclivities 

e. local government complexity 

f. staffing organization 

g. degrees of state dominance 

h. voting representation status of central city 

56 
representative sample. To develop a good understanding of each case, ACIR collected documents, 

interviewed a representative set of key players in 

each of the 18 MPO processes, and carefully documented the responses. 

The interviews were conducted with over 240 

participants in the MPO process. Approximately 30 

percent were MPO staff, and another 36 percent 

were local government officials (elected and nonelected, including public transit agencies). State 

officials accounted for 11 percent, and federal officials made up 8 percent of the sample. The remaining 15 percent of respondents represented citizen, 

business, freight, and other interests. 

Peer Review 

The research design was reviewed by a representative group of experts and IvlPO process participants before the field research began (Thinkers’ 

Session). The drafl report was critiqued by a similar group before it was finalized and adopted by the 

Commission (Critics’ Session). The persons participating in these sessions are listed in the 

“Acknowledgments” section. 

Questions to be Investigated 

There were three principal 

ing: 

lines of question1. What changes have been made in the MPO 

process to comply with the new requirements of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Eflciency Act of 1991? 

2. What difficulties have been encountered in 

trying to comply with ISTEA? 

3. What types of help does the MPO need to 

respond to the ISTEA innovations more 

effectively? 

The questions covered a variety of capacity 

issues, which are listed in BOX 23 (page 3 1). Three 

equally important types of MPO capacity are 

addressed in this table: Institutional Capacity 

(organizational structures and relationships), Planning Capacity (analytical and planning processes 

and planning products), and Implementation 

Capacity (political action and results). 

The 15 specific factors of metropolitan transportation planning suggested by ISTEA, are listed 

in BOX 17, (page 27). For each issue in BOX23, 

ACIR asked the questions in BOX24, (page 32). 

Interviewers were not looking for “right” or 

“wrong” answers to these questions, but sought to 

identify perceptions in each region about the types 

of assistance that would be most useful to the 

MPOs. The persons interviewed were promised 

anonymity so they could answer freely and frankly 

even those questions that might touch on controversial issues in the current MPO process. 

Interview Preparation 

The interviewers were given the notebook 

prepared by ACIR for the project Thinkers’ Session, as well as a few other documents. In addition, 

ACIR collected from each of the MPOs background materials (such as their unified planning 

work program and their long-range plan). 

The interviewers studied these materials for 

the area to be visited to get a preliminary understanding sufficient to open the interviewing efficiently and knowledgeably. The interviewers were 

instructed to prepare a preliminary diagram of the 

MPO process, based on the materials supplied by 

the MPO, as a conversation starter concerning the 

institutional capacity issues. 

Interviewing 

The interviewers tried to visit with all key 

players in the MPO process, such as: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

MPO staff (executive director and/or planning director, plus others); 

MPO board (chairperson and /or others; 

making sure to include center city and suburban elected officials); 

State DOT representative who generally 

attends the MPO meetings (and others); 

FHWA representative who generally 

attends the MPO meetings; 

FTA representative who generally attends 

the MPO meetings; 

57 
6. Transportation providers (transit, port, air7. Local land use and development officials; 

8. Citizens and interest groups (environmental, disabilities, historic preservation, etc.); 

9. Air quality officials (if non-attainment). 

Most of these people were interviewed as 

individuals (for their convenience). Group meetings were scheduled when possible if there were 

several persons in any of the above categories and 

if the group setting would not be likely to inhibit 

frank responses. 

When key persons could not be worked into 

the average two-day field visit schedule for each 

MPO, they were contacted by phone at a later time. 

Phone-backs to interviewees were used to clarify 

any uncertainties when preparing the case-study 

reports. 

Interviews started with a brief description of 

the request by FHWA and FTA for ACIR to objectively help identify the types of assistance that different MPOs perceive to be of greatest help to them 

in meeting their ISTEA responsibilities. Interviewers stressed that ACIR’s intent was not to evaluate 

the MPO, but to listen to the experiences expressed 

and the needs perceived by those being interviewed. Interviewees were shown the diagram of 

their MPO process and asked for confirmations and 

corrections to stimulate discussion of processes and 

institutional linkages. 

Persons interviewed were not forced through 

every issue if not in a position to respond. Care 

was taken to avoid leading responses. 

port, private carriers, etc.); 

Preparation of the Case-Study Reports 

The individual case-study reports (which 

ACIR is not publishing to preserve the anonymity 

of the respondents) accomplished two objectives: 

(1) to identify the kinds of assistance that would be 

genuinely helpful to the MPO, and (2) to put those 

suggestions in the context of the MPO’s situation 

so it is clear what kind of MPO would benefit from 

that assistance. 

used to draft the case studies: 

The following outline was the basic structure 

I. 

11. 

111. 

Overview of the MPO Structure and 

Process. The basic set-up. What has 

changed, and what is changing because 

of ISTEA? 

Priorities for What Needs to be Done. 

How the federal and local priorities differ. Taking first things first, in the context of expansive ISTEA requirements 

and limited existing capabilities. Largely based on the perceptions of the interviewees, but with clearly identified 

conclusions by the interviewer. 

Assistance Needed. The types of assistance being sought, and the sources of 

assistance being drawn upon. Suggestions for additional help needed, even if 

sources of that help are not identified. 

Analysis of Results 

The 18 case-study reports provided unstructured answers to those broad questions. The ACIR 

staff classified the answers and tabulated the number of MPOs yielding similar answers. Typical 

comments were preserved without attribution, to 

describe the flavor of the responses received. 

The sample of MPOs and interviewees was 

too small to allow precise statistical analysis of differences among the types of MPOs and the types of 

respondents. Thus, the results of this study are 

more qualitative and suggestive than quantitative 

and scientifically proven. 

A thorough evaluation of the applicable federal regulations and the true facts of each MPO’s 

situation were beyond the scope of this report. 

58 
Appendix B 

CONFERENCES AND RESEARCH 

OTHER ISTEA-RELATED 

CONFERENCES 

March 30-3 1, 1992, Washington, DC-ISTEA: 

New Partners for Surface Transportation in the 

1990s, STPP. 

November 12, 1992-University of Minnesota, 

Center for Transportation Studies Symposium. 

December 4-5, 1992 through 1993-Transportation Planning for Livable Communities, 11 

regional conferences, STPP and other sponsors. 

September 9- 10, 1993-Metropolitan America 

in Transition: Implications for Land Use and 

Transportation Planning, Lincoln Institute of 

Land Policy and DOT, Arlington, VA. 

October 3 1-November 3, 1993-TRB Workshop 

on Multimodal Transportation Planning Research Needs, Irvine, CA. 

November 7- 10, 1993-Integrating Transportation Management Systems into Transportation 

Planning and Operations, VECTOR at Vanderbilt U. and DOT, AASHTO, NARC, and State 

of Tennessee/ Issues related to the rule on state 

management systems, coordination among 

SDOTs, MPOs and private sector. 

January 8, 1994-Managing for Change: Strategies for the ISTEA Era, STPP. 

March 16- 17, 1994-National Training Summit, 

U.S. DOT. 

March 20-23, 1994-The Environment, Changing Our Transportation Priorities, Institute of 

Transportation Engineers. 

June, 1994-Livable Communities, Business 

Transportation Council. 

December 7-9, 1994-two concurrent conferences sponsored by TRB in New Orleans: (1) 

National Conference on the Intermodal Terminal of the Future and (2) National Conference 

on Intermodalism: Making the Case, Making It 

Happen. 

NEW RESEARCH TOPICS 

For the April 1995 conference on data and 

planning methods planned for Seattle, Washington, the Transportation Research Board invited 

papers on the following topics: 

Transportation management systems 

Land use/transportation interaction 

Administration and finance 

Geographic information systems 

Intelligent vehicle highway systems 

Statewide planning 

Public involvement processes 

Data collection 

Major investment analysis 

Travel demand analysis and modeling 

Land use and socioeconomic forecasting 

Multimodal and intermodal planning 

Transportation impact analysis 

Conformity and air quality planning 

ISTEA RESEARCH RECOMMENDED 

BY A TRB CONFERENCE 

The following studies were suggested at the TRB 

Conference at Irvine, California, November 1-3, 

1993 which addressed CAAA and ISTEA compliance needs. (See Multimodal Transportation: 

Development of a Performance-based Planning 

Process.) They are under way. 

Synthesis of Intermodal Statewide Transportation Planning. Report due February 

1995. (Activities funded in five states and a 

New England consortium.) 

Parsons Brinckerhoff, Involving Citizens in 

Post-ISTEA MPO Transportation Planning. 

(Report due mid- 1995 .) 

59 
HowardBtein-Hudson, Innovative Techniques 

for Public Involvement in Transportation Planning and Project Development. (Technique 

descriptions, case studies, application essays, 

and revised training material.) 

HWA contract for development of a course: 

Statewide Transportation Planning Process. 

Integration of Land Use Planning with Multimodal Transportation Planning. 

Develop Improved Data and Data Collection 

Eflorts. 

Develop and Maintain Partnerships for Multimodal Planning. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF TRANSPORTATION 

UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION 

CENTERS PROGRAM 

10 Regional Centers 

1. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

(and 7 other universities) 

2. City University of New York 

(and 11 other universities) 

3, Pennsylvania State University 

(and 4 other universities) 

4. North Carolina State University 

(and 10 other universities) 

5. University of Michigan 

(and 5 other universities) 

6. Texas A&M University 

(and 2 other universities) 

7. Iowa State University 

(and 1 other university) 

8. North Dakota State University 

(and 3 other universities) 

9. University of CalifornidBerkeley 

(and 3 other universities) 

10. University of Washington 

(and 3 other universities) 

3 National Centers 

1. National Center for Transportation and Industrial Productivity, New Jersey Institute of 

Technology 

2. National Center for Transportation Management, Research & Development, Morgan 

State University 

3. Mack-Blackwell National Rural Transportation Study Center, University of Arkansas 

University Transportation Centers 

Clearinghouse 

Pennsylvania State University 

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Ofice of University Programs, University Transportation Centers Program: 

1995. 

INTERMODAL TECHNICAL 

ASSISTANCE ACTIVITIES 

FOR TRANSPORTATION PLANNERS 

CONTENTS 

Types of Assistance Offered 

Air Quality Analysis 

Ci tizen/Industry Participation 

Congestion Management 

Economic Analysis 

Environmental and Social Impact Analysis 

Geographic Information Systems 

Intermodal Facilities Planning 

Intermodal Freight Transportation 

Intermodal Systems-Planning and Management 

Metropolitan and Statewide Planning Activities 

Resource Centers 

Transportation Statistics 

Travel Demand Forecasting 

Travel Demand Management 

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Intermodalism, 

Intermodal Technical Assistance Activities for Transportation Planners. Washington, DC, August 1993. 

60