“Transit plays a major role in regional planning, and every

MPO should have transit at 

the table.” 

Shirley DeLibero, former Houston Metro President and CEO

U.S. Department 

of Transportation Federal Transit

Administration
Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of

Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States

Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof.
Form DOT F 1 78-(07/02)-7 Per FORM PRO/Derina 04/04/94 Reproduction of completed page authorized

1. Report No.. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient Catalog No..

VA-90-1004-04-1

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

Transit at the Table: A Guide to Participation in Metropolitan Decisionmaking December 2004

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Julie Hoover AICP – Dr. Bruce McDowell, FAICP – Gian-Claudia Sciara, AICP

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. SWork Unit No.(TRAIS)

Parsons Brinckerhoff

One Penn Plaza 11. Supplementary Notes

New York, NY 10119

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Distribution Code

Federal Transit Administration

Office of Planning and Environment

400 7th Street SW 14. Sponsoring Agency Code

Washington DC 20590 FTA-TPE-12

15. Supplemental Notes

Project Manager: Effie Stallsmith, Community Planner, Federal Transit Administration

202-366-5653, fax: 202-493-2478, email: Effie.Stallsmith@fta.dot.gov, www.planning.dot.gov

16. Abstract

This report presents the observations, perspectives, and recommendations of a cross-section of transit agencies from large metropolitan areas 

on how to secure strategic positions in the metropolitan planning process. More importantly, the report can be a guide on how to use those 

positions to win policy and program support for priority transit services. The challenges to achieving full decision-making partnerships in 

regional settings, the most effective strategies for addressing these challenges, and the rewards of partnerships are presented by transit industry 

leaders using their own experiences.

While the primary audience for Transit at the Table is transit general managers and transit senior staff, important messages are included for 

other key stakeholders. Because the overall effectiveness of a Metropolitan Planning Organization rises and falls with the depth of the decisionmaking partnerships, suggestions and strategies presented in this report represent significant opportunities for improving current practice.

Key findings of the report were also used in preparing a self-assessment checklist for transit operations in assessing their profile and participation

in metropolitan planning. The indicators are generic and not exhaustive. As such, the questions should be regarded as only the starting point for

subsequent discussion focused on local issues. This checklist is located in Appendix A of the report.

This report is a product of the Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program and can be found at www.planning.dot.gov as a metropolitan

planning technical resource.

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

Transit/transportation planning, long range planning, financing, flex funding, land use, Available through: National Technical 

decisionmaking, multimodal, certification reviews, Transportation Improvement Plan (TIPs), Information Service (NTIS),

public involvement, revenue resources 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield VA 22161

703-487-4650

19. Security Classification (of this report) 20. Security Classification (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price

Unclassified Unclassified 88

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the research

team express their special appreciation to the American

Public Transportation Association (APTA) for their support

and help throughout the entire study effort. Bill Millar has

been a consistently staunch friend and sage, providing astute 

advice and guidance and making his staff readily available to

assist the project team whenever needed. Rich Weaver went

far beyond the call of duty to support this undertaking in 

various ways with both the Technical Working Group and

focus groups. Lynne Morsen provided a special forum to

showcase the results at APTA’s General Managers 2004

meeting and worked with the research team to make this

event successful.

Research Study Team

Julie Hoover, AICP, Principal Investigator

Senior Vice President, Parsons Brinckerhoff

New York, New York

hoover@pbworld.com

Dr. Bruce McDowell, FAICP 

Fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration

President, Intergovernmental Management Associates

Washington, D.C.

Gian-Claudia Sciara, AICP 

Senior Planner, Parsons Brinckerhoff

New York, New York

Federal Transit Administration

Effie Stallsmith, Charlie Goodman, Terry Rosapep,

Carolyn Mulvihill, Darin Allan, AICP

Federal Highway Administration 

Robin Smith

Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

Rachael Barolsky, John Boiney, Vita Waters,

Philip Thornton, Cassandra Oxley, Norris Padmore

Technical Working Group

Fred Abousleman, Transportation Director, National

Association of Regional Councils; J. Barry Barker, Executive

Director, Transit Authority of River City (Louisville); Trip

Brizell, Senior Manager of Capital Programming, Dallas

Area Rapid Transit and Chair of APTA Policy & Planning

Committee; Anne Canby, Director Surface Transportation

Policy Project; James Cheatham, Pennsylvania Division

Administrator, Federal Highway Administration; Ed

Coven, Transit Manager, Florida Department of

Transportation; Nacho Diaz, Director of Transportation,

Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities (Minnesota); Joel

Ettinger, Region V Administrator, Federal Transit

Administration (Chicago); Edward Fleischman, Director,

Federal Transit Administration, Office of Oversight; John

Horsley, Executive Director, American Association of State

Highway and Transportation Officials; Thomas Larwin,

General Manager, San Diego Metropolitan Transit

Development Board; Ysela Llort, Acting Assistant Secretary

for Intermodal Systems Development, Florida DOT; Dale

Marsico, Executive Director, Community Transportation

Association of America; John Mason, former Mayor, City

of Fairfax, VA and former Chair, National Capital Region

Transportation Planning Board; Bill Millar, President,

American Public Transportation Association; Janet Oakley,

American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials; Richard Weaver, Project Manager, American Public

Transportation Association; Mike Ritchie, California

Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration;

Susan Schruth, Associate Administrator for Program

Management, Federal Transit Administration; G. Alexander

Taft, former Executive Director, Association of Metropolitan

Planning Organizations.

Acknowledgments
MTA

Baltimore, Maryland
Table of Contents

Executive Summary vii

Introduction

Findings

Audience 

Benefits of Participation and Strategies for Achievement 

Chapter I – Transit Can Be a Strategic Player in Your Region 1

I.1 Seek Formal Roles on Metropolitan Planning Organization 

Boards and Committees 1

I.2 Develop MPO/SDOT Relationships and Participate in Metropolitan Planning 7

I.3 Cultivate Relationships with Additional Partners and Stakeholders 11

I.4 Engage in Broader Issues 19

I.5 Create Supplemental Groups to Fill Gaps 24

I.6 Capitalize on Certification Reviews 26

Chapter II – Transit Can Be a Positive Force in Transportation and Land Use Planning 33

II.1 Participate Fully in Preparing the Long Range Plan 34

II.2 Be a Strategic Participant in All Corridor Studies 36

II.3 Promote Land Use Integration 43

Chapter III – Financial Planning Counts 47

III.1 Help Determine the Cooperative Revenue Forecast 48

III.2 Make the Most of Federal Flexible Funding Opportunities 51

III.3 Aggressively Explore State and Local Revenue Sources 55

Chapter IV – The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is the Bottom Line 61

Appendix A – Self-Assessment Checklist for Transit Operators 65

Appendix B – Study Methodology and Characteristics of Selected Areas 69
MTA

Baltimore, Maryland
Introduction 

The transit industry today has an unprecedented opportunity

to meet the access and mobility needs of the metropolitan

communities it serves. With passage of landmark transportation reauthorization bills since 1991, Congress and the

President provided significantly increased financial support

and flexibility to highway and transit programs. This has

greatly improved the ability of state and local decisionmakers

to assemble the resources needed to implement the most

appropriate mix of modal solutions. These pioneering laws

also have enabled transit operators to exert greater influence in

transportation policy formation and decisionmaking in metropolitan areas, an important means of realizing the benefits

of increased program resources and flexibilities.

This report presents the observations, perspectives, and 

recommendations of a cross-section of transit agencies from

large metropolitan areas on how to secure strategic positions

in the metropolitan planning process. More importantly, this

report can be used as a guide to how to use those positions to

win policy and program support for priority transit services.

The challenges to achieving full decision-making partnerships in regional settings, the most effective strategies 

for addressing these challenges, and the rewards of partnerships are presented by transit industry leaders using their 

own experiences.

Conclusions presented here are based upon in-depth 

interviews with senior officials from transit operators and 

metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in 25 large,

urbanized areas.To ensure broad applicability of findings, the

selected locales were chosen to be representative of a wide

range of governmental, environmental, and operating 

settings. A full description of the methodology appears 

in Appendix B.

Findings

Many of the transit operators interviewed are strategic players

in their regions and at their MPOs, where they contribute to

decisions affecting economic development and land use, as

well as transportation investment priorities. They find opportunities to participate vigorously in, and get impressive policy

and program support from, the broad range of MPO activities.

However, the incidence and depth of transit interest and

involvement in MPO activities is uneven. A number of transit operators report that they are not aware of the potential

benefits in broad-based policy support and additional program

resources that they could realize and, therefore, do not seek

MPO participation. Many of those who participate do so

minimally and continue to search for effective ways to capitalize upon that.

Some who seek stronger roles in metropolitan decisionmaking

may be overwhelmed by the organizational complexity of

MPOs and the detailed and time-consuming nature of the

MPO’s technical work. This can be particularly troublesome

when their attempts to get involved meet resistance.

Transit operators who view themselves only as service

providers and do not participate in setting the broader policy

agenda for their areas may be missing the best opportunities

envisioned by Congress and the President in recent reauthorization bills.Transit operators may be accepting only program

funding that is readily available through the Federal Transit

Administration (FTA), though it may be at levels far short of

what they need. While this is happening, discussion of modal

priorities and investment needs at the MPO policy level may

be taking place without transit representation, thereby perpetuating those resource limitations. Transit operators who

become involved in the MPO decision-making processes have

more opportunities to seek out innovative funding mechanisms for their high priority projects.

Even some transit operators who actively pursue strategic participation in planning processes encounter challenges. Just as

transit agencies range in their level of MPO involvement from

“operators only” to strategic partners, the extent to which planning at MPOs is inclusive and open to broader multimodal

representation varies. Some MPOs simply administer the

Executive Summary

vii
Federally required process, while others are strategic players

striving for comprehensive inclusion of all modes. Many transit operators believe that inadequate center city representation

and other factors limit their voice in the MPO. In addition,

some state departments of transportation (SDOT) hold the

transportation planning and programming reins tighter than

other SDOTs, who share information and cooperate freely

with transit agencies and MPOs. Governors and state legislatures vary widely in the extent to which they encourage transit agencies and MPOs as regional decisionmakers. Local politics may also be an issue, especially where local officials do not

support transit.

Finally, many study participants reported that the outcome is

only partially in the hands of the transit agency. In fact, the

degree to which a “level playing field” actually exists has 

been the subject of extensive research and commentary. To a

large extent, the impact of transit participation may lie collectively in the hands of the MPO, the state DOT, and other

planning partners.

On a positive note, this study found that regardless of the local

situation, highly successful transit agencies make the most of

the opportunities available to them while creating other

opportunities at the same time. These transit agencies make

an effort to establish a professional rapport with the various

personalities as they come together in consensus-based decisionmaking. In the end, it is the interplay of these institutions

in their policy, professional, and technical linkages—in each 

metropolitan area—that determines the level of transit participation in decisionmaking and, ultimately, the quality of 

services provided.

To meet the growing demands for service improvements in

the face of increased competition for traditional revenue

sources, operators are pursuing supplemental funding through

local taxes, fees, and bond initiatives. Involvement in metropolitan planning may benefit operators both before and after

such ventures. MPO endorsement may bolster advance 

support for the proposal. If the revenue enhancement proposal

is approved, transit operators may be able to exert greater

influence in regional decisionmaking because they are able to

bring new funds to the table.

Audience

While the primary audience for Transit at the Table is transit

general managers and transit senior staff, important information is included for other key MPO stakeholders as well.

Because the overall effectiveness of an MPO rises and falls

with the depth of the decision-making partnerships, the 

suggestions and strategies presented in this report represent

significant opportunities for improving current practices.

Participation at the MPO level can result in many benefits,

with some occurring almost immediately and others over 

the longer term. Ten major benefits identified by study 

participants and selected strategies for achieving them are

provided below.

Finally, share your planning concerns and questions with your

FTA Regional and Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA) Division Office partners.

“You have to convince me that wrestling with my MPO is a better use

of my time – there are a hundred other things I could be doing” 

— General manager of a transit agency

Benefits of Participation and Strategies for Achievement 

1. Influence the identification of transportation 

issues, policy formation, and funding priorities—by

being an active participant on the MPO Board 

and/or committees.

2. Promote transit service as a regional transportation 

priority—by collaborating with the business community, citizen groups, local officials, and other MPO partners. This can significantly enhance the prospects of

any referenda that may be contemplated, and raise the

visibility of transit service in your community.

3. Establish an image of transit as indispensable to community well being—by getting involved in broader

issues facing your community, such as homeland 

security, land use and economic development, and 

environmental protection.

TRANSIT AT THE TABLE: A GUIDE TO PARTICIPATION IN METROPOLITAN DECISIONMAKING

viii
4. Win support for transit-friendly land use policies—by

promoting land use/economic development/transportation integration, leading to MPO policy support

for transit-oriented development.

5. Win support for your investment needs—by promoting early, open, and objective consideration of transit in

regional corridor studies conducted by, or through, the

MPO. This can result in support for your capital

improvement needs directly, or as a component of

another project, such as bus shelters, park-and-ride

facilities, signage, sidewalks, or even a special transit

right-of-way, when a highway investment alternative 

is selected.

6. Promote multimodal solutions—by assuming joint

sponsorship of studies with state DOTs, especially if

the outcome is a shared highway/transit right-of-way 

or busway.

7. Get transit on the agenda—by being involved in MPO

committees such as those dealing with policy, air quality, and technical methods.

8. Strengthen your funding prospects for your

priorities/shape the transportation future—by participating fully in preparation of the long range transportation plan and short range transportation improvement program (TIP).

9. Secure funding from non-traditional sources for your

priorities—by making a convincing case for your

investment needs to other MPO members.

10. Accelerate delivery of your projects—by monitoring

the status of projects programmed in the TIP to note

schedule changes.

“Through the transportation technical committee, we make sure our

issues are brought forward, discussed, and supported by the region.

For example, committee

members sent a letter to

our congressional delegation [expressing] agreement

among technical staff that

Interstate Max is the

region’s number one priority.” 

— Fred Hansen, General

Manager of Tri-County

Metropolitan Transportation

District (Tri-Met) Portland,

Oregon

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ix

Fred Hansen

General Manager 

Tri-Met Portland

Portland, Oregon
BART

San Francisco, California
Engaging in broader issues—such as Intelligent Transportation

Systems (ITS), air quality, ride sharing, social services transportation, high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, urban development or redevelopment, bicycle facilities, security, and 

special events—can open new opportunities for your transit

agency. Documented benefits are described in Section I.4.

Finally, ways in which some of you have created supplemental

groups and forums to expand upon your effectiveness in

regional decisionmaking and have used the certification

review process to enhance transit’s acceptance as a full partner

in regional transportation policy, plan, and program decisions

are highlighted in Sections 1.5 and 1.6 and throughout 

the report.

I.1 Seek Formal Roles on Metropolitan

Planning Organization Boards 

and Committees

“Having voting membership on the MPO is probably most ideal. I

have worked in situations where transit didn’t have as much say. I

applaud the MPO for what they do. Transit plays a major role, and

every MPO should have transit at the table.”

— Shirley DeLibero, former President and CEO, Houston Metro 

The ways in which

transit operators participate in MPOs vary

widely across the country. Some transit agencies have full voting

membership on the

MPO Board, while

others do not. In some

cases, local elected officials who sit on the

MPO Board also represent transit’s interests,

and they may rely heavily

on the transit operator to provide input and feedback about

issues and agenda items considered by the Board. Where does

your agency fit in the decision-making process? 

This chapter sets an important context to begin engaging

your agency in the metropolitan decision-making process 

and describes the many ways you can establish yourself 

as a proactive leader in your community. By doing so, you can

achieve valuable influence in your formal metropolitan 

planning organization (MPO) deliberations, develop strong

productive relationships with your MPO and state department of transportation (SDOT) heads, and establish new

fruitful partnerships with citizen and environmental groups,

community business leaders, the media, Federal agencies,

and local elected officials. A number of transit operators 

consulted for this study have emerged as real leaders in their

regional transportation arena. Their personal relationships

and proactive leadership culture have played key roles.

The following pages present summaries of many of these

operators’ experiences in accomplishing this.

Seeking formal roles on your MPO Board and committees

and cultivating strong relationships with MPO and SDOT

leaders can have significant benefits as demonstrated in

Sections I.1 and I.2. Even if you have been frustrated with

the decisionmaking in your community, it is worth the effort

of getting involved again, drawing from the advice of your

counterparts in other places. While many barriers exist that

limit transit’s meaningful participation in regional decisionmaking, our research shows that it is often possible to 

overcome these obstacles and that problematic local situations can change dramatically. You may not find all the

answers you need in this report, but you will learn what

philosophies and strategies your counterparts have used 

successfully to make progress.

A surprise finding was the extent of benefits that transit 

operators report that they derive from relationships with the

broad range of stakeholders they encounter at the MPO.

In Section I.3, for example, the many and varied ways in

which widespread collaboration can promote support from

citizens, business, media, and other groups in your region for

transportation decisions that benefit transit are documented.

I Transit Can Be a Strategic

Player in Your Region

1

Shirley DeLibero

Former President and CEO 

Houston Metro 
Challenges You May Face

Transit operators report numerous institutional barriers to full

and effective participation in MPO processes, including 

the following:

• MPO membership partial to highway interests;

• Inadequate central city representation on MPO Boards;

• Non-cooperative SDOTs, or SDOTs uninterested in

transit programs;

• Multi-state MPOs and the associated organizational

complexity;

• MPOs hosted by SDOTs; and

• Decentralization and fragmentation of power in 

metropolitan areas.

In several areas, transit proponents are advocating partial

remedies, such as population-weighted voting and more 

neutral MPO hosting arrangements.

Transit leaders like Pete Cipolla,

General Manager of Santa

Clara Valley Transportation

Authority (VTA), and Shirley

DeLibero formerly of Houston

Metro, advocate that transit

operators push for the more 

far-reaching solution of redesignating the MPO Board to

provide voting representation

for transit on the Board.

“Redesignation could help

equalize power relationships

within MPOs,” says Cipolla.

All healthy partnerships require mutual expectation, action,

and support. Thus, another occasional impediment may be

the attitude of the transit operator. A few operators do not see

themselves as strategic players, or feel there is anything to 

be gained from participation in the MPO process. Some

operators cite inadequate staff capacity to even attend meetings.

MPOs address a multitude of issues and do so at various

stages in transportation decisionmaking. From Board decisions

on policies and programs, to staff-directed technical studies,

to interagency coordinating committees, there are many

strategic opportunities to secure a high-profile role for your

agency and its mission. With topic interests spanning long

range planning, air quality conformity, bicycle and pedestrian

issues, among many others, MPOs address a broad agenda 

of transportation in contemporary life. Topic-focused MPO

committees present strategic opportunities for transit 

operators and other regional stakeholders to actively engage

in dialogues on these issues. Many successful transit operators

have found that active staff participation at the committee

level is an important way to ensure that transit has a voice 

in the transportation planning process. An important 

second step, therefore, is to identify the key committees 

within the MPO and how your organization is, or could be,

optimally represented.

While exactly how transit agencies are involved in these

efforts differs from place to place, one thing is clear: those

operators who are most satisfied and gain the most from

MPO involvement have actively, and even aggressively,

sought formal and informal roles on their MPO’s Board and

supporting committees to the maximum degree possible.

TRANSIT AT THE TABLE: A GUIDE TO PARTICIPATION IN METROPOLITAN DECISIONMAKING

2

Chicago, Illinois

Pete M. Cipolla

General Manager 

Santa Clara Valley 

Transportation Authority
Transit Can Be a Strategic Player in Your Region

3

county and city. Regionally, coordination is better, so they are not constantly reinventing the wheel or stepping on one another’s toes.” 

Houston MPO Director Alan Clark confirms the importance of Houston

Metro’s involvement. “I think having a seat on the Policy Board is

extremely critical. I think it’s a mistake for MPOs not to have transit

operators represented,” Clark says. 

Houston Metro also enjoys a voting seat on the MPO Board. It

may not be that common, but

some operators who lack a seat

on the MPO Board have

expressed satisfaction with the

representation of transit’s interests by others at the MPO.

Catherine Debo of Metro

Transit in Madison, Wisconsin,

reports that transit-supportive

board members carry the 

day. “We get what we need. The

City has the greatest number of representatives on the MPO

of any community.They make a case for transit when it needs

to be made,” says Debo. This, however, is not automatic and

results from long-standing personal and organizational partnerships among the representatives.

In other cases, exclusion from the MPO Board or an important

committee is highly problematic for the transit operator. Las

Vegas’ transit operator reports high satisfaction with MPO

Board representation through local elected officials. However,

transit lacks voting membership on the high-level MPO

Executive Advisory Committee (EAC), the group that reviews,

approves, and prioritizes the spending of gas tax money for

street and highway projects. According to Regional

Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada General

Manager Jacob Snow, “EAC isn’t interested in managing and

operating a bus system by and large – it’s seen as a second

class form of transport—they’re there to get as much roadway

money for their area as possible. The structure means it’s an

uphill battle for transit to compete with roadways for funding...EAC voting membership for transit would be 

an improvement.”

Catherine Debo

General Manager

Madison Metro

Others set their sights and expectations low in terms of the

policy and program outcomes they aspire to achieve. The

remainder of this section highlights the perspectives and

strategies of the agencies that have participated.

A Voting Seat

The organization, membership, voting rights, and committee

structure of any MPO is the unique product of Federal

requirements, state laws, and inter-local agreements that

established the MPO. When an MPO is formed, a

Memorandum of Understanding must be executed among

participants in the metropolitan planning process, including

transit operators, delineating their individual roles and

responsibilities within the organization. While voting membership on the MPO Policy Board for transit agencies is not

a Federal requirement, many transit operators have worked

with their MPO partners to obtain this standing. As a result,

they now enjoy full voting privileges on the MPO Board and

have used this in realizing broad intergovernmental support

for their policies and programs. In St. Louis, the transit operator has long benefited from voting membership. Susan

Stauder, a former official with the Bi-State Development

Agency (now St. Louis Metro) remarked, “Bi-State has been

a voting member forever....Transit has always been at [the]

MPO table.”

A Seat on the Board in Houston

Since 1979, Houston Metro has held a seat on the Houston-Galveston

Area’s Transportation Policy Council. Leadership at both the transit

agency and the MPO feel that transit’s voting participation is highly

important and yields great benefits. Houston Metro’s former President

and CEO, Shirley DeLibero, could not imagine life without MPO voting

membership, and she used it! “I sat on the MPO Board and I voted.

When I couldn’t go, I sent my alternate. Metro is very involved in decisions and voting at the MPO. They vote not only on transit issues,they

get to vote on everything,” DeLibero remarks. While the MPO Board 

is obviously a premier forum for presenting transit’s interest in regional decisions, transit membership on the Board provides the larger 

benefit of enhancing regional coordination. “A role on the MPO

Board,” says DeLibero, “allows Metro to better coordinate with the

State DOT, the toll roads department, and the engineers for the 
TRANSIT AT THE TABLE: A GUIDE TO PARTICIPATION IN METROPOLITAN DECISIONMAKING

4

No Committee Left Unturned in Salt Lake City

The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) in Salt Lake City is another transit

operator that makes the most of opportunities to participate on the

MPO committees, as a complement to its non-voting membership on

the Board. UTA has two voting members on the transportation advisory

committee, which makes recommendations to the MPO Council. UTA

General Manager John Inglish remarked, “We are quite active on the

MPO. We work closely with the MPO staff, and we have for many

years, working on major studies, long range planning, and more.”

Membership on other committees also provides the opportunity to

ensure that transit’s perspective is represented and understood in

much of the underlying planning work and deliberation. UTA participates in subregional technical advisory committees (TAC) as well as

committees dealing with aviation, regional growth, and air quality.

Work on the committees is often where technical discussions take

place among the MPO staff and the staff of member agencies. Many

operators describe their involvement in MPO committees by saying,

“This is where we all roll up our sleeves.” 

At the Wasatch Front Regional Council, Salt Lake City’s MPO, the 

TAC works over the period of a year to bring forth the region’s priorities. The group establishes technical standards to review and prioritize

projects for inclusion in the long range plan and TIP. “By actively participating in the committee,” said Inglish, “UTA can present projects

that are critical to us in a format required by the technical committee,

giving those projects credibility in the TAC.” At the committee level,

the UTA also competes for flexible funds. And so while the MPO

Board is a critical place for transit to have representation, active 

participation at the committee level can supply a strong foundation

for the transit agency’s position – and its potential projects – within

the MPO. 

Where transit operators lack a designated seat on the MPO

Board, an important committee, or even an informal working

group, one strategy to win entrée to the forum is simply to ask

or show up. Few transit operators report using this technique,

but those who did reaped benefits.

Washington, D.C.: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit

Authority (WMATA) showed resolve to participate in the

State Technical Working Group, an informal committee that

sets the monthly agenda for policy and technical committee

meetings at the MPO. “We weren’t on that Working

Group—so we just started showing up,” recalls Rick Stevens,

Washington, D.C.

Crash the Party

“We weren’t on that Working Group--so we just started showing up.” 

— Rick Stevens, WMATA 

MPO Committees

MPO committees comprised of officials and/or staff from

organizational partners in the planning process do much 

of the underlying work upon which larger decisions are built,

including setting performance-based priorities among 

projects to be included in the Long Range Plan and

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). While each

MPO has its own committee structure reflecting the needs of

the region, many MPOs have a Technical Committee, a

Policy Committee, and an Air Quality Committee.

Committees vary in how they function and the influence they

exert in MPO Board decisionmaking and may have a formal

voting process among members, or may work on a consensus

basis. Some committees may strongly influence how the

MPO Board votes on certain issues and some may play a

more information-sharing role.

Whether or not a transit agency has a voting seat on the

Board, active participation in MPO committees can amplify

a transit operator’s voice within the MPO and all of the 

decisions it makes.
Transit Can Be a Strategic Player in Your Region

5

membership come from discussions with a wide range of

transit agencies and MPOs:

• Attend in person GMs that personally attend MPO

Board meetings have an opportunity to build relationships. Personal attendance can also foster executivelevel commitment to decisionmaking, information

sharing, and collaboration. In St. Louis, the MPO

Board does not allow vote by proxy. East-West

Gateway Council of Governments (St. Louis MPO)

Director Les Sterman remarks on the impact of 

personal attendance: “The Board does not allow any

proxies—if a Board member wants to cast a vote, you

have to be there. When they (MPO members) are all

there like that, they develop relationships that wouldn’t

have happened had they sent staff or a city council 

person with a particular interest in planning.That leads

to a variety of relationships and other activities h

appening at a higher profile. It’s an historical artifact—

from 1965, when the MPO was created. The Board

has recognized the importance of their getting together

as individuals. They like the opportunity to come

together at the table and discuss common issues. They

appreciate that opportunity.”

WMATA Deputy General Manager of Operations.“Although

the group is an administrative body in principle,” says

National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board

(Washington, D.C. MPO) Director Ron Kirby, “the meetings would drift into technical and policy matters... There

was advance information being discussed there, which

WMATA wanted to be part of...and they just started showing

up.... It’s good that they did this, because it has kept them

informed about what’s happening.To the extent that issues of

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) being

available for transit are discussed, or we sometimes get into

TIP issues, how CMAQ will be spent, TIP amendments,

etc., it affects them. Now that flex funding is possible,

WMATA needs to be involved because TIP issues affect

them. It’s important that they be there because they’re a big

part of what’s going on.”

Little Rock: Keith Jones, CEO

of the Central Arkansas Transit

Authority, says a similar

approach was used to gain

access to decisionmaking in the

MPO’s technical advisory 

committee: “Although the TAC is

primarily a citizens committee, it

has direct involvement in transportation issues and the long

range plan, and it provides five

positions for technical staff. At

first we were not on it, but we

wanted on. We became a squeaky wheel for the MPO staff

until we were allowed in.”

Make the Most of Board and Committee Time

For some transit operators, it is difficult to find the time 

needed to devote to MPO activities. As one operator put it,

“Transit agencies face the day-to-day responsibility of providing

service to the community, and day-to-day operations naturally

come first.” Nonetheless, time spent at the MPO by the 

general manager (GM) and the staff of a transit operator is

an investment that can lead to big rewards. The following

strategies for making the most of Board and committee

Keith Jones

CEO, Central Arkansas

Transit Authority

San Francisco, California
TRANSIT AT THE TABLE: A GUIDE TO PARTICIPATION IN METROPOLITAN DECISIONMAKING

6

• Chair the committee Serving as chair of an MPO

committee may be a particularly effective way to make

the most of the valuable time invested in committee

functions. For the MPO committees on which your

agency serves, how is the committee chair selected? A

few operators report that sharing in a rotational assignment as committee chair provides helpful opportunities.

• Roll up your sleeves A number of operators note the

importance of engaging in technical work at the MPO

committee level. Eric Gleason of Seattle’s Metro

Transit remarks, “Getting in at the technical level 

to support MPO planning efforts produces a better

product for the policy efforts. You could choose not to

support the technical effort or to marginally support it

and save review and criticism for the product itself, but

we prefer to get in at a technical level and influence the

product.” In Columbus, Ohio, transit’s participation 

in the technical committee has brought “tremendous

benefit,” says former GM Ron Barnes. “Involvement

on committees keeps us plugged in, and the net effect

is very positive.”

• Collaborate While Board and committee positions

are a place to advance transit’s interests, several operators

noted the importance of fostering a collaborative ethos

for working with other MPO members. Albany’s

Capital District Transit Authority (CDTA) staff are

active in the Capital District Transportation

Committee (Albany MPO), and feel they have influence on transportation decisions. Their ability to work

with other regional partners has earned them respect.

Says MPO Staff Director John Poorman, “CDTA has

always been a strong player in the MPO process and a

very collaborative player. Just witness the number of 

activities in the last 10 years where CDTA has helped

frame issues at the MPO table and then been an

instrumental implementer.”

Bill Millar, president of the

American Public Transit

Association, notes that

transit’s success at the

MPO depends on much

more than just having a

seat on the Board. “If transit representatives are

given seats, they need to

participate. The seats

won’t mean anything if

they attend only once a

year. Transit has to come

whenever the MPO meets,

and it has to sit on other

committees —administrative, executive, and general programming

committees. Transit needs to be an active participant. The benefit of

deep involvement in the MPO,” says Millar, “will be a cumulative benefit of the relationships built over time as the commission appreciates

what transit can bring to the table. It’s not only about having rights at

the MPO, but also exercising their responsibility.” 

• Attend regularly Whether representing transit on the

MPO Board or its committees, consistent attendance

by the GM or another high-level staff member helps to

establish continuity and credibility. The main benefit of

attending regularly is finding opportunities to talk

about and include transit in the deliberations more vigorously. Sending a different person every time dilutes the

effectiveness of participating and may give the appearance that the transit operator does not value the work

or the importance of the MPO. Where a transit operator

sends a different staff member each month to cover an

MPO committee meeting, the opportunity to develop

valuable working relationships with other member

agencies, elected officials, and stakeholders is lost. Even

when agenda items may not speak directly to transit

issues, regular attendance is important. Committees are

venues for information sharing; every meeting is a

chance to learn what other transportation providers are

planning, what opportunities for collaboration exist, and

how transit may serve the needs of a variety of agendas.

William Millar

President,

American Public Transit Association
Transit Can Be a Strategic Player in Your Region

7

making. Informal benefits include helping other members to

understand what transit can and cannot do, as well as learning

what else is going on in the region. Developing relationships

with other MPO participants is a key benefit.

“It’s a must to have personal relationships.”

— Rick Walsh, former GM, Metro Transit, Seattle 

According to Millar, “One of the great benefits of being on the

MPO is the camaraderie that was developed with members

of the commission. Even other members from outlying counties

who didn’t think much about transit before came to understand the real issues facing transit and some of the real contributions transit could make. I don’t know that I made them

raving transit fans, but I made them supportive when they

could be. Before that, they would have dismissed transit.”

Some MPO directors go out of their way to support transit.

Bill Habig, Executive Director of the Mid-Ohio Regional

Planning Commission (Columbus MPO), explains why he

and his agency make extra efforts to help their transit agency,

Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA). “Other MPOs will

go part of the way, but they don’t go to the extent we do.

Other areas have transit agencies that are well-funded 

authorities compared to ours. We’ve seen the need to do this

because COTA is so far behind the power curve in terms of

being funded.” St. Louis MPO Director Les Sterman

expresses the same basic sentiments: “Transit is different

because there are always money problems. We [the MPO]

think we need to work harder on their behalf than for

MoDOT, which has formula funding and is funded very well.

We’ve worked more closely with transit than with others.”

Transit operators elsewhere might try to convince their MPO

directors that they need special help, and MPO directors

might consider whether they need to give additional attention

to their transit partners if they are under-funded.

Barry Barker, Louisville’s GM, reports that the MPO has

consistently ranked his agency’s light rail transit (LRT) 

project their number one priority, and Sharon Dent notes that

“sometimes the MPO prioritizes our LRT higher than my

own Board.”

I.2 Develop MPO/SDOT Relationships and

Participate in Metropolitan Planning

“You have to be in the game to win.”

“Transit must maximize opportunities to make things work. We start at a disadvantage and have to work toward making our voices heard.”

— Fred Hansen, GM, Tri-Met

Based on the study, the levels of personal, active GM 

participation in MPO processes vary greatly among transit

agencies. A few transit leaders rarely attend MPO Policy

Board meetings, even though their agency may have an 

official seat at the table. They may believe that most “real”

decisions are made elsewhere, so their participation is of little

value. This may be the case; however, as this report will show,

there are still good reasons to get involved. Other GMs feel

that transit is not a high priority in their MPOs and that they

could never achieve any gains, so they elect to bypass the

process. Of course, GMs who come up winners know that

“you will never win anything if you aren’t in the game.”

Similarly, while some GMs may choose not to interact with

their MPO and SDOT counterpart leaders, others work hard

at fostering strong professional and personal relationships.

They put aside professional and policy differences and 

focus on cultivating partnerships, collaborating on issues of

common concern, and interacting informally on a wide range

of issues, in a variety of decision-making settings.

“Being an effective player has more

to do with personalities than institutional issues. That’s why there’s such

a wide range of practices and outcomes from place to place.” 

—Sharon Dent, former Executive

Director, Hillsborough Area Regional

Transit Authority (HART) 

(Tampa MPO)

In reflecting on his days as GM

of Pittsburgh’s transit agency,

American Public Transportation

Association (APTA) President

Bill Millar sees two types of payoffs. There are formal benefits like the ability to participate, to vote, and to learn the ins

and outs of MPO decision

Sharon Dent

Former Executive Director

Hillsborough Area Regional

Transit Authority
TRANSIT AT THE TABLE: A GUIDE TO PARTICIPATION IN METROPOLITAN DECISIONMAKING

8

membership on the MPO and other operators in the Region agreed to

have WMATA represent them. Since his arrival at WMATA, Dick White

has represented the agency on the MPO and has been an active participant in MPO activities.”

In White’s own words, having a seat at the table has been extremely

beneficial. “Previously, WMATA was represented on the MPO by one

of our Board members, who would be wearing the hat of their local

government as well as the WMATA hat. I convinced the Board to 

designate me as the official agency representative on the MPO. This

allowed us to be more aggressive in ensuring that WMATA’s interests

were pursued. In addition, I used other WMATA Board members who

were on the MPO, but acting as representatives of their local governments, to help me pursue and champion the WMATA agenda. Also, we

helped to organize our natural stakeholders (environmentalists, smart

growth champions, etc.) to actively champion the transit agenda.

The overall benefits have been that transit issues have been elevated

on the MPO agenda, and we intend to keep it that way.”

White personally represents his agency and comes to all the key MPO

meetings, which Kirby thinks is a good sign. “WMATA’s tendency prior

to becoming a voting member was to be represented at MPO meetings

by mid-level staff. When they became a voting member, the question

was who would represent WMATA. At the outset, they had senior staff

or a WMATA Board member represent the agency but then Dick White

arrived, and he said, ‘I’m going to represent the agency.’” Kirby characterized White as a “forward-looking GM, one who deals with the

elected officials, the states, and others as opposed to staying back at

the shop and checking on trains. He comes regularly to MPO meetings

and expresses WMATA’s positions.”

Kirby’s assessment is consistent with Dick White’s personal philosophy.

“I work hard at establishing and cultivating personal relationships with

as many elected officials as possible, and with each of the three state

DOTs,” White says. “I make sure that we have designated staff to cover

as many of the stakeholder groups in the region as is possible.” Although

White is operating in what may be the most institutionally challenging

metropolitan area in the United States, he does not give up. “Due to

the enormous complexity of our region, it seems that it is an almost

impossible task to cover all the Federal, state, local, and private sector bases and keep WMATA in good standing in their eyes. However, I

spend an enormous amount of my time on this, and I require that my

senior staff also spend much of their time doing this as well.”

“RTD’s [Denver’s transit agency]

involvement with DRCOG [Denver’s

MPO] is essential and very beneficial.

Our relationship is excellent. We are

equal partners, enjoy productive

give-and-take, and are together on

all the main issues. We present a 

unified front in advocating the 

metropolitan area’s case to CDOT...

One of my main responsibilities is to

improve and maintain the relationship with DRCOG as much as possible.

I work on this in many ways.” 

— Cal Marsella, RTD GM

In Salt Lake City, John Inglish, GM of Utah Transit

Authority (UTA), says his agency prepares a large amount of

data and analyses to advance transit’s case in the technical

committees. Inglish also advances their issues directly with

local elected officials and aggressively cultivates their support

(see Section I.4), which helps to secure MPO approvals.

A range of philosophies, motivations, and strategies about

MPO participation are expressed below.

Dick White Establishes New Paradigms at Washington

Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)

“Andre Agassi was right when he said, “image is everything.” You

must work hard to build a positive image inside your community and

then work even harder to maintain it. The general manager must

take personal responsibility to do this and to develop an “army of

staff foot soldiers” that work on it, as well. At WMATA, we are building

the case that Metro matters to the quality of life for all residents of

our region, and that the region cannot maintain its health unless the

regional transit system is in good health.” 

— Dick White, WMATA GM

MPO Transportation Director for the Washington, D.C. metropolitan

area, Ron Kirby, reports that things changed at his MPO with the

arrival of WMATA GM Dick White as a voting member of the Policy

Board. “Prior to the 1991 ISTEA legislation, WMATA had been an exofficio member of the MPO Board. However, WMATA used the ISTEA

legislation to insist on greater transit participation through voting 

Cal Marsella

General Manager

Regional Transportation District
Transit Can Be a Strategic Player in Your Region

9

1. You need to be a part of [the MPO process] and be persistent.

Trying to break the barrier and get involved is not something

you can delegate, at least not early on. You have to be there.

2. You also have to include the other MPO members. My monthly

report [at the MPO policy board meetings] keeps them

informed about what’s going on. Just being there is not

enough.

3. You have to be vocal, be honest, and voice an opinion. People

appreciate it when you’re honest and they see you are not trying to beat them up, but that you have legitimate concerns.

4. You need to become personally involved and build those friendships. Pick up the phone, invite them to lunch or something---

it’s been very helpful to have these personal relationships.

5. You have to make an effort. You can’t wait for them to come to

you—you have to go to them.

6. And finally, you should share the credit. For example, we just

brought out some hybrid electric buses. We retrofitted them

and the MPO helped us get the dollars for this through the

state. As a result, we put the MPO logo on the buses as well

as ours, as a collaborative effort to clean the air. They appreciated that name recognition, and we got the buses. You need to

be inclusive in the things you do.

Alan Clark, DeLibero’s previous MPO counterpart, Director of

Transportation Planning for the Houston-Galveston Area Council,

reports being “very satisfied” with his relationships with Shirley and

Houston Metro. 

According to WMATA Deputy General Manager of Operations Rick

Stevens, “Once ISTEA said transit should have representation on

MPOs, we were the first ones out of the box...As a result, we’ve been

able to play a stronger role in promoting transit over SOV solutions.

Our Board members now understand the MPO process better and are

bringing a transit perspective to the MPO. We’re a big voice at the

table.” A May 2003 analysis indicated that close to 60 percent of

total regional transportation expenditures would be spent on public

transit, with highways receiving close to 40 percent. 

Shirley DeLibero: Making a Silk Purse from a Sow’s Ear

“I can’t imagine not being at the table.”

— Shirley DeLibero 

Despite formidable obstacles and a local tradition favoring road 

building and widening, former Houston Metro President and CEO

Shirley DeLibero has managed to turn things around for transit in

Houston. The region’s first rail system has opened for service, and

local officials now take transit much more seriously, seeing it as a

major piece of the solution to regional traffic congestion.

While DeLibero attributed much of the credit to her staff, local observers

believe she had much to do with transit’s success. Besides taking full

advantage of opportunities to participate—and even creating some

new ones (see Section I.4) — DeLibero cites several personal strategies of potential interest to GMs elsewhere.

Baltimore, Maryland

Dallas, Texas
TRANSIT AT THE TABLE: A GUIDE TO PARTICIPATION IN METROPOLITAN DECISIONMAKING

10

Ron Barnes Seeks Mobility Manager Role; MPO Participation

is a Strategy

In Columbus, former Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) GM Ron Barnes

aspired to be a mobility manager for his region, not just a transportation

provider. He felt that being a mobility manager opened the door to all kinds

of opportunities, and believed

his agency had to be involved

in the planning process.

Five years ago, as a new GM,

he convened a retreat of

community leaders to deliberate what the vision of

COTA should be and on the

current perception of COTA.

The stark response was that

“transit is invisible.” Seeking

to change this perception,

Barnes became an active

MPO member and initiated

involvement in other community activities. He realized that transit

needed to be at the front end of the process, not left to solve problems

when it was too late. As a result of the planning retreat, Barnes

started talking about transit in terms of broader mobility management.

As a voting member of the MPO, Barnes was very active in this forum,

and his staff participated in all the key committees. Planning Director

Mike Greene reports that this involvement is “...absolutely a benefit.

Ron can raise the level of consciousness to make members aware of

issues important to COTA. There is also an advantage when decisions

are made regarding flexible funds.” 

Barnes says the benefits of proactive involvement include showing

people that transit means more than a bus, and that engaging MPO

stakeholders earlier in the planning process can build-in the transit

perspective when first considering new developments and planning

opportunities. He wanted COTA to be part of any transportation

issue being addressed in the community. 

Barnes and his MPO counterpart had breakfast monthly to talk about

their priorities for the coming month. They had a common network and

theme. The fact that the Columbus MPO head, Bill Habig values

transit made it easier for Barnes to participate effectively. After Barnes

led COTA in creating a vision and mission, he enlisted MPO support

to integrate it into the long range plan. Because of their close relationship, Barnes reports that “things that I do are not threatening

to him; I’m more of a partner.” 

Ron Barnes

Former General Manager

Central Ohio Transit Authority

Fred Hansen Cites Speaking With One Voice as a 

Major Benefit 

Another transit leader who appreciates the benefits of personal participation in the MPO is Portland’s Fred Hansen, GM of Tri-Met. 

To ensure transit is a full player, Hansen participates personally and

works to build relationships with the other key participants. Personal

relationships and credibility can really make a difference. “This is

something that I can make happen for transit,” he says. On the I-5

Trade Corridor Task Force, for example, Hansen recalls, “there was not

a single person I didn’t know fairly well before they were appointed to

the group. I was able to have the relationships and credibility to make 

specific points and have the members consider and accommodate our

perspectives.” MPO (Metropolitan Service District) Planning Director

Andy Cotugno agrees. “The Policy Board is the key decision-making

body for the MPO. It’s where other local public and elected officials

gather, and if they are not committed to transit, then the MPO won’t

do much for transit. It is the key place for the GM to be active, and if

the GM is not active, then it shows he doesn’t care about the role of

transit. Fred is a full voting member of the Policy Board. He is very

active and respected and is effective in carrying transit’s message.”

One of the main benefits of participation, Hansen feels, is the

opportunity to work with the other regional partners to hash out

issues and speak with one voice. This allows the MPO members to

speak to the Region’s congressional delegation with one voice and to

communicate clear priorities. “We have a regional voice,” says Hansen,

“This is essential.”

Chicago, Illinois
Transit Can Be a Strategic Player in Your Region

11

Relationships with state DOTs are also very important.

Almost all transit operators interviewed felt that the state was,

or should be, an important funding source as well as an essential

ally in joint endeavors. Several GMs reported good relationships with their SDOT, although this was sometimes qualified.

One operator who characterized the relationship as “excellent” is Paul Skoutelas, the Chief Executive Officer of the

Port Authority of Allegheny County, Pittsburgh’s primary

transit agency. He noted that he and his staff work with the

DOT and cultivate relationships at two different levels. First,

the Port Authority works with Pennsylvania DOT’s district

offices to manage the impact on transit service of highway

construction activities, including detours and road closures.

The Port Authority maintains a second set of relationships

with the planning and programming staff at the DOT’s

Harrisburg headquarters, which oversees the state’s transit

program and grantmaking. “This relationship is very important,” says Skoutelas, “We see them as partners and collaborators. We receive large amounts of state dollars.”

I.3 Cultivate Relationships with Additional

Partners and Stakeholders

It Takes Two to Tango

Savvy general managers and transit agency staff know it is

smart to reach out to key stakeholders beyond MPO and

state DOT participants. They understand that by building as

many strong relationships and alliances as they can beyond

the traditional MPO players, they can increase their influence

inside the MPO. If you have not already established a

constructive rapport with leaders of the predominant citizen

and environmental groups, the business establishment, the

media, and Federal agencies in your region, as well as local

elected officials, consider the many diverse benefits of such

collaboration discussed below.

The type of interaction advocated goes well beyond formal

public involvement activities in which many of you already

engage. It includes more far-reaching strategies like developing

personal relationships, promoting transit at every possible

opportunity, and proactively identifying partnering possibilities for joint endeavors.

Often, the obstacles to developing such relationships have to

do with perceptions and communications. For example, one

transit representative told us they stay away from civic and citizen groups unless they are invited to speak because “instead

of helping you, they usually bash you.” However, the majority of potential partners mentioned above are natural allies of

transit, if carefully nurtured. Participants from outlying areas

may represent a special challenge if their area is not served by

transit or if they do not view transit as relevant to them. Still,

persistent efforts by transit leaders can neutralize hostilities,

or even convert foes into occasional supporters, as APTA’s

Bill Millar explained in Section I.2.

Citizen and Environmental Groups 

Even before Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency

Act of 1991 (ISTEA) triggered an increased emphasis on 

participatory planning, many of you instinctively knew there

were enormous benefits in collaborating with citizen and

environmental groups and were sponsoring more vigorous

public involvement programs than your colleagues at MPOs

and state DOTs. You still appear to be in the vanguard of this

movement and, as the examples below illustrate, are enjoying

many benefits of those efforts.

• Enhanced legitimacy Public involvement adds credibility to planning processes and decisionmaking by the 

very fact of having been participatory. In a sense, the 

arguments for and against citizen participation are similar to those for democracy. Both can be shortsighted,

full of surprises, and a source of delay. Over time, however, they yield decisions and results that better address

the needs and concerns of the community and, thus,

that are considerably more popular and sustainable.

• Building support for transit among local elected 

officials In several metropolitan areas, citizens have

been instrumental in influencing decisionmakers to

support transit. San Francisco provides a good example.
TRANSIT AT THE TABLE: A GUIDE TO PARTICIPATION IN METROPOLITAN DECISIONMAKING

I

12

Bay Area Citizens Eliminate Transit Funding Shortfall

Citizen and environmental groups in the Bay Area have long been

staunch advocates for transit, supporting numerous referenda to

increase transit funding. Going one step further several years ago, they

actually persuaded the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC),

the Bay Area’s MPO, to use more discretionary funding to fully fund the

transit capital rehabilitation needs of the existing system—an inspirational illustration of the value of citizen partners.

During the 1998 Regional Transportation Plan update, MTC identified

major capital funding shortfalls for both transit capital rehabilitation

and street and road needs. They

approved a recommendation to fund

75 percent of the transit shortfall

with discretionary money and, in the

same way, to fund a smaller percentage of the shortfall for street

and road needs. Environmental and

citizen groups responded vigorously

that MTC was not going far enough

to help transit, demanding that 100

percent of the shortfall be funded.

After intense controversy, MTC

changed their policy, requiring that

the Plan be amended to cover the

total transit shortfall within three

months. This commitment to fund 100 percent of transit’s capital

shortfall was retained through the 2001 Plan update and is certain to

be a major issue when the Plan is revisited. (Current MPO proposals

fund only 25 percent of the transit capital shortfall, which has grown

substantially over the past three years due to significantly constrained

revenue forecasts, although that does not diminish the significance of

the original citizen victory.)

Like all transit agencies in the Bay Area, BART is well aware of the

value of their citizen group allies. Deputy General Manager Dorothy

Dugger observes: “It’s very important in this funding environment that

elected officials hear from constituents we seek to serve that BART is

relevant and valued. Our popularity with the public helps. When the

elected officials understand this, it is positive. Some elected officials see

that BART’s popularity can help carry a new funding program which

requires voter approval, so they include us; there has not been a local

transportation sales tax initiative that went to ballot that didn’t

include BART. It’s very compelling when we go to the elected officials

and have 84 percent popularity with constituents.”

Dorothy Dugger

Deputy General Manager 

Bay Area Rapid Transit

Jacob Snow Enhances Transit Credibility Through 

Public Involvement

On November 5, 2002, voters from

Las Vegas and Clark County

approved 53 to 47 percent a proposal for the Regional Transportation

Commission of Southern Nevada

(RTC) to raise $2.6 billion over the

next 25 years to pay for roads, highways, and an expanded transit system through taxes on developers,

aviation fuel, and retail sales. In an

election year where the majority of

such measures failed, this is a noteworthy accomplishment. Transit’s

increased credibility, largely the

result of RTC General Manager Jacob Snow, is perceived as a major

factor contributing to the measure’s successful outcome.

Snow’s strategy of boosting citizen involvement to enhance transit’s

legitimacy is noted by a local participant: “Jacob has pushed community

involvement in these decisions to a much higher level than before.

Transit decisions were previously seen as a black box—they were made

only within the context of transit operations, not within the broader

set of transit needs. Analysis was never well understood or

explained... Transit said ‘This is what the MPO came up with or what

the consultants said.’ This frustrated people.”

“At the political level, the transit side of things has gained a lot of

ground. I think because Jacob Snow has increased community involvement in decisionmaking, lots of responsibility has been shifted from the

staff level to a higher level, where it should be. Elected officials and

community leadership now drive those decisions. We’re getting more

effective decisions now about solving transport problems.” 

• Increased Support for Implementation It has been

well documented over the past two decades that effective public involvement strengthens the ability of agencies to implement their decisions. Citizen support is

especially essential when substantive change is contemplated – a new fixed guideway, more transit-oriented

mobility, progressive regional visions of smart growth,

more flexible funding directed toward transit, or the 

political will to implement the tough measures needed

Jacob Snow

General Manager

Regional Transportation

Commission of Southern Nevada
Transit Can Be a Strategic Player in Your Region

13

realized the measure would mean taxing themselves, but they saw it

as either ‘put up’ or ‘shut up’, and that’s why it passed.” 

Charlotte’s new GM, Ron Tober, has

continued Charlotte’s participatory

tradition, noting that, “We held over

300 public meetings on planning

and service improvements. In some

places we have a good reception; in

others, a bad one, depending on

whether they like what you are

doing.” Others report that Ron is

engaged in local speaking engagements most weeknights. When he

has conflicting invitations, he sends

top staff to cover all of the events. 

• Improved planning Good participatory planning produces transportation policies and plans that are more

tailored and responsive to community needs. It is the

best way to obtain information on community goals,

needs, and impacts. Citizens may also identify additional alternatives or even completely new solutions.

Seattle Metro, for example, reports that: “We use them

(the Citizens Advisory Transit Committee and the

Elderly and Handicapped Committee) extensively in

the development of service changes, and we form

stakeholder groups around capital investments. We

always have extensive public involvement efforts for

both groups.”

A strong, proactive media relations program is usually 

essential in building public support for transit in the region.

“We deal with the media all the time, by visiting editorial boards of the

major newspapers and maintaining close relationships with all the

reporters who cover us. We have full-time staff devoted to media relations; we work those issues very hard. We track column inches of press

coverage and think about what this would cost in advertising dollars.”

— Fred Hansen, General Manager, Tri-Met 

Ron Tober

General Manager 

Charlotte Area Transit System

to achieve air quality goals. It is much easier to realize

bold new initiatives or to tackle tough political 

problems when you have solid public backing.

In Columbus, Ohio, “The regional transit agency, COTA, is very good at

being a proponent for transit. COTA’s director, Ron [Barnes] is on the

road all the time speaking to groups about the importance of transit

and how it can impact quality-of-life in the region. Several staff 

members aid him in that process. It’s had a positive effect.” 

— Bill Habig, Executive Director, Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission

(Columbus MPO) 

Experience with local financing initiatives, particularly those

requiring referenda, also strongly suggests that measures have

greater chances for success when preceded by effective 

participatory planning. By ensuring that community members have a role in developing the transit program, your

organization can make sure that community concerns are

aired and addressed and can increase the public’s interest and

stake in actively campaigning for the program’s passage.

Charlotte provides a clear example.

Charlotte Citizens Help Transit Gain $50 Million/Year

Charlotte’s 1998 passage of a transit sales tax generating about $50

million/year was a huge victory. It has generated extensive favorable

attention in the transit industry. No one thought the initiative would

pass on the first try because most transit operators have to go to the

voters several times before they succeed. Why was this case different?

Local observers point to strong support from a popular mayor, very

robust help from a growth-minded business community, the program’s

compelling connection with land use, and responsive, widespread 

public involvement that led to decisive citizen backing.

Tim Gibbs, former transit planning manager for the Charlotte Area

Transit System and former MPO coordinator, confirms that extensive

public involvement was a key factor in the measure’s success. “Citizens

were involved from day one. There were a number of public meetings

and a successful media campaign to get media on our side. Charlotte’s

city communications department set up a website for the referendum

and led the effort. (Note: this was before the transit agency, Charlotte

Area Transit System (CATS), was established as a separate body.) 

An e-mail newsletter frequently informed and energized key business

and community groups as well as individual citizens. The public 
TRANSIT AT THE TABLE: A GUIDE TO PARTICIPATION IN METROPOLITAN DECISIONMAKING

14

The most important ingredients of effective public involvement are to be as open, honest, fair, and responsive as 

possible in your dealings with citizen and environmental

groups. It’s also important to be proactive and to put a 

great deal of effort into the up-front design of your public

involvement programs.

“Public participation is critical in all

elements of the planning and project

development process for major transit and highway projects. The ‘easy’

part is to get public participation

during the public hearings. The ‘hard’

part is to get public input at the

planning stage when the critical decisions on the project are being

made.”

— Joel Ettinger, Regional Administrator,

Region V, FTA 

Business Groups 

The dynamics of business support for transit have not been

studied extensively, so little is known about them. Why, for

example, did business leaders in Atlanta become staunch supporters of Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority

(MARTA) back in the early 1970s while their counterparts

in many similar cities in that region remained indifferent at

that time? Certainly, demographics and regional vision are

major factors, but transit leaders’ attention to the business community undoubtedly played a role as well.

Some transit operators have recently begun to reach out to business leaders and developers when planning transit improvements

or efforts to nurture transit-oriented development (TOD).

In some cases, a business community skeptical of transit 

benefits may pose a significant barrier. Some strategies your

colleagues have used to overcome this appear at the end of

this section. Specific benefits of cultivating relations with and

support of business interests include:

• Assistance with funding Business may support transit

because it feels transit will enhance their city’s image as a

“world class” city, reduce congestion, and/or improve 

access to the workplaces for employees. Business leadership is often essential in helping transit agencies win

support for new financing initiatives, especially referendums (for example, in Atlanta, Charlotte, Seattle,

Portland, and other cities) but also for new taxes and

other measures. In Pittsburgh several years ago, for

example, business leaders helped to lobby successfully

for new supplemental state taxes dedicated to transit.

Although the research uncovered no examples of transit

agencies that had enlisted business support to increase

flexible funding, the previous examples suggest the

potential for such a strategy.

Without the support of the business community, it is

often difficult to implement a major transit initiative,

especially if new funding sources are involved. When

business leaders are not on board, they sometimes lead

efforts to defeat these initiatives.

• Implementation of TOD concepts Transit agencies 

in Atlanta, Charlotte, Portland, and a few other regions

are avidly courting businesses and developers to secure

their participation in TOD, joint development, and

related transit supportive land use ventures.

In Charlotte a local group has organized as the

Business Community for Regional Transportation

Solutions and is sponsoring forums to examine transit

options in five different communities where bus rapid

transit (BRT) corridors have been identified. They

have looked at each corridor, looked at potential station

opportunities, and have also debated BRT versus LRT.

Says former Transit Planning Manager Tim Gibbs,

“The development community themselves said they

want to understand this and to have an open and honest discussion about how to make it work.”

Joel Ettinger

Regional Administrator

Region V,

Federal Transit Administration 
Transit Can Be a Strategic Player in Your Region

15

Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA)

Woos Developers And Other Business Interests

Over time, MARTA’s relationship with the Atlanta business community

has evolved. While the business community has traditionally played a

strong role with general transit system support, it now proactively

promotes land use and development programs intended to increase

ridership. Recognizing that their transit-oriented development (TOD)

plans cannot succeed without the help of developers and other business

interests, MARTA hired an employee totally dedicated to TOD, and

much of the staffer’s time is spent engaging the business community. 

Atlanta’s business community has historically been quite active and

unusually generous in supporting transit-related issues. Most recently,

the Metro Atlanta Chamber joined with several Community Improvement

Districts (CIDs) to release an RFP for transit market research, exploring

issues such as how to attract new riders and how to change transit to

attract choice riders. Another initiative, the I-285 Transit Corridor Study,

is able to move forward into National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (NEPA) because of a $1.2 million contribution from two CIDs in the

area. This special funding filled the last gap in a $6 million study.

MARTA is on the steering committee of this MPO-led project, representing a mutually beneficial partnership of three major interests—

business, transit, and the MPO. 

A sampling of strategies used by transit agencies follows.

Each business community is different, of course, and will

require approaches tailored to local circumstances to harness the

key role business can play and optimize their participation.

1. Be involved in business groups, in leadership positions

if possible.

Many of you participate actively in local business

groups. The Chamber of Commerce was cited most

frequently in this review, but a multitude of other

organizations also were named. In Denver, the

Regional Transit District’s General Manager Cal

Marsella participates regularly in all the Chambers of

Commerce in his region, as do several WMATA senior

officials in their region. In Salt Lake City, the transit

agency is invited to participate in the Chamber of

Commerce as an ex-officio member and the general

manager currently sits on the board of the most important

committee; his staff participates in almost all of the

other committees.

Numerous Chambers visit successful sister cities once a year

to absorb lessons they can apply in their own communities.

Many GMs recalled steering Chamber selections toward

cities with good transit systems and ensuring that a significant

part of the trip focuses on visits with local transit officials and

supportive business leaders.

“We want to be a part of any transportation issue being addressed in

our community. Here, the Chamber of Commerce has an Infrastructure

Committee. Transit was not part of it three years ago. That changed

because I have regular meetings with the President of the Chamber

and she was involved when we talked about the vision for transit. Now,

I’m on that Committee...I asked to be on the Committee. I also asked

to be on the Board, but this hasn’t happened yet. I think I need to be on

the Chamber Board; we are part of business and we want people to

think of us that way. We can entice business to our area.” 

— Ron Barnes, former General Manager, COTA 

2. Make frequent contacts with business leaders and 

presentations to business groups.

Almost all transit operators make presentations to local

business groups and try to cultivate personal relationships with at least a few of their leaders. John Inglish

believes that, “If you are not perceived well in the business community, you will have political problems.”

Through frequent interactions, he has also found new

opportunities for transit, such as the region’s downtown

transit/parking validation program, where business

either validates the parking for their customers or gives

them a token.

3.When possible, add business leaders to existing boards

and committees.

Santa Clara County enjoys excellent relations with

their local business community, which has assisted in

the passage of three local funding measures. Their

Citizens Advisory Committee has representatives from

the Chamber, as well as from a local labor council and

a group of large manufacturers. In Portland, Fred

Hansen worked behind the scenes to get the president

of their Chamber appointed to the transit agency’s

board, explaining that: “It’s very important to have
TRANSIT AT THE TABLE: A GUIDE TO PARTICIPATION IN METROPOLITAN DECISIONMAKING

16

officials gathered nationwide evidence that supported CTA’s case. They

also worked closely with FHWA and FTA Headquarters officials to

change the guidance. Ultimately, they succeeded. Subsequently, a joint

FHWA/FTA guidance document was issued allowing sponsors of major

station rehabilitation programs to compete for CMAQ if such projects

can be shown to increase transit ridership and improve air quality.

The result of the new guidance will provide $20 million in CMAQ 

funding to pay for major Chicago station renovations in their first

year, and local officials can ask for more in subsequent years. This

sets a new precedent that could greatly benefit other regions whose

transit systems have aging stations (such as New York, Philadelphia,

and Boston). 

Overall, relationships between transit and FHWA are less

developed and more project-dependent, yet there are places

where this relationship is a close and advantageous one.

Several transit operators registered dismay about conflicting

advice and guidance received by local transit agencies from

FHWA and FTA. These conflicts range from divergent 

revenue forecasting guidance to different methods of 

estimating capital costs of projects (that would disadvantage

transit) to differing perspectives about cost overruns.

Consistent guidance and procedures between these two

Federal agencies would be widely applauded and appreciated

by transit officials.

“The lack of a level playing field is a

major obstacle. One example is the

way FTA and FHWA require cost estimating. In Louisville, there is an LRT

on the table with an estimated cost of

$751 million. This cost estimate is in

year-of-expenditure dollars and

includes heavy mitigation costs to

satisfy FTA procedures. At the same

time, the region is assessing two

major highway bridges, estimated at

$1.7 billion, but this estimate is in

current dollars with no mitigation, in

accordance with FHWA procedures,

making the cost of the bridges artificially lower in comparison with the LRT 

because of the differing estimating procedures.” 

— Barry Barker, Executive Director, TARC

business members on transit agency boards because

transit people sometimes get classified as ‘social engineers’ and it’s important to have business people who

can articulate the business case for transit.”

Federal Agencies 

Federal agencies have field staff to help you. Most transit

operators reported satisfaction with FTA in obtaining grants

and interpreting regulations and guidance. In locations where

there is no FTA office, several respondents wished FTA

could have greater involvement in the MPO planning process.

Therese McMillan, Deputy Director of Policy for the

Metropolitan Transportation Commission (Bay Area MPO)

speculates that: “I think it [the FTA office there] has worked

to our advantage... When things are in a gray area and you

can have face-to-face meetings, this helps move things along.

Transit grantees may have differing opinions on FTA’s proximity, but I would guess most people see it as a benefit.”

FTA Changes the Rules for Chicago

“The Chicago FTA/FHWA Metropolitan Planning Office has been

invaluable to our planning process. Their close proximity makes possible a greater participation with our committees and task forces.

Having them active is a tremendous advantage to us. They better

understand local issues while providing us with a consistent source 

of information from the Federal agencies.” 

— Don Kopec, Chicago Area Transportation Study (CATS) Deputy

Executive Director.

A notable example of FTA assistance is the change of CMAQ eligibility

rules regarding station rehabilitation. As discussed in Section III.2,

CMAQ is the major source of flexible funding for transit agencies.

When the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) embarked on a program of

major station rehabilitation, they counted on significant CMAQ funding.

To their dismay, FHWA/FTA initially refused to allow major station 

renovations as an eligible CMAQ expense because they claimed such

projects would not increase ridership, one of the program’s criterias.

FTA field officials thought station rehabs should be eligible because 

a vastly improved station with enhanced amenities could attract new

riders, especially if several or all the stations along a line were

improved. Washington officials plus FHWA disagreed, so FTA field 

Barry Barker

Executive Director

Transit Authority of River City 
Transit Can Be a Strategic Player in Your Region

17

A few transit respondents felt that the transit-friendliness

across FHWA offices was uneven, sometimes promoting

highway expansion even after regional plans and decisions

supported other modes. One GM cited FHWA advocacy for

an additional highway lane in available ROW next to an

interstate highway that had previously been reserved for

LRT. Feeling this was inappropriate intervention, the GM

claimed that, “this even got hair up on the backs of people

who were pro-road because they didn’t like being told by the

Feds what to do.” Other transit officials reported favorable

experiences with FHWA. Little Rock GM Keith Jones, for

example, reported that FHWA does a better job of being

considerate of transit now than in past years and characterized them as “a potential ally for any transit system.”

Finally, the recent decisions of the United States Court of

Appeals for the 10th Circuit on the Legacy Parkway

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and 114th South

Interchange Environmental Assessment (EA) in Utah 

reinforces the need for more Federal involvement and 

support in corridor planning than has been characterized 

in prior relationships. The court cited the lack of Federal

oversight in all phases of project development as one of the

main reasons both projects received adverse decisions. In the

Legacy Parkway Project, for example, the court concluded

that the Federal agencies failed to verify the cost estimates in

the screening phase of project development. Although these

were highway cases, the transit industry is cognizant that

close involvement of FTA and FHWA field staff in planning

and project development processes with the MPO will 

continue to be important to avoid future litigation.

Elected and Agency Officials 

Elected officials and the public agency managers that report

to them are key targets for collaborative relationship building.

Clearly, it is in your best interests to cultivate all local elected

officials who have decision-making authority over issues that

might affect you. Sometimes this may be an uphill battle, but

it needs to be joined.

Decentralization of decisionmaking in some regions, particularly larger ones like New York, the Bay Area, and Seattle, has

increased the influence of local, parochial politics on regional

decision-making processes envisioned to be guided by consideration of objective criteria within a regional context. Real

decisionmaking in such places often takes place outside the

MPO in other arenas like county commissions. In another

region, one respondent complained that their project selection

is so “highly political” due to state domination, it is impossible to give any influence to objective evaluation criteria. In

several other states, powerful highway construction lobbies

are cited as a severe obstacle. In still another state, political

party differences among elected officials comprising the

MPO and transit board was cited as a barrier to effective

cooperation.

“The first barrier is the fact that we don’t have enough votes. The

process is highway-dominated and there are certain dollar amounts

that are established ahead of time. Transit is regularly voted down at

the table... We get support, but nothing compared to what is given to

roads. The situation is controlled by people who have been in the business 15 to 20 years - their interests are roads. Roads. Roads. Roads.” 

— A transit GM 

A large number of transit agencies cited local governments

outside central cities as a barrier, charging that MPO Boards

are often filled with pro-highway interests and MPO committees are filled with highway-supportive public works

directors and traffic engineers. This is an especially difficult

problem when there is a significant mismatch between your

service area boundaries and the coverage of the MPO 

planning area.

San Francisco, California
TRANSIT AT THE TABLE: A GUIDE TO PARTICIPATION IN METROPOLITAN DECISIONMAKING

18

A final observation is that some MPOs operate in an environment that is fairly well insulated from partisan politics, while

others must be key political actors, even to the point of actively

campaigning for their patrons. A transit manager’s independence

is determined largely by its institutional location—whether it is

part of a local government that is a member of the MPO, or

an independent agency with an elected or appointed board.

Regardless of the political setting and climate, it still seems

prudent to cultivate good relationships with all local elected and

agency officials as much as possible to advance transit in the region.

Transit leaders have identified many successful strategies for

dealing with these political realities. Former Seattle Metro

Transit GM Rick Walsh worked hard to develop relationships

of trust with his local officials. “When we came into a public

forum and I told them a number, they trusted it was accurate.

This comes from, first, being available to brief them on issues—

I did it personally and with staff, and second, usually having 

personal relationships with one or more people on those bodies,”

Walsh said.

Salt Lake City’s John Inglish engages in the local political

process because it helps his agency get projects into the plan

for funding. One key strategy is on-site and off-site

tours and education:

“We take elected officials to

other cities —10 to 15 offsite tours per year. We take

20 to 30 officials to systems

in California, Oregon, St.

Louis—wherever a system

demonstrates something

that might help our communities. This has been

very effective for us.” He

also makes an effort to be

open and responsive to the concerns of local elected officials

and has a staff of governmental relations people who work

with them. Inglish sees his agency’s role as making the mayor’s

community more successful, as a partner in trying to solve

problems and make a contribution.

“John [Inglish] spends lots of time cultivating local government. He is

pretty good at that. He really understands the MPO process and

knows who makes those decisions. Utah is a small state. Urban officials in the state legislature make the decision—John has staff that

works with them. He knows where the money comes from. He works

on getting support for his operation--not just city and county staff and

elected officials, but at the state legislative level and the Governor’s

office too. John’s a good old boy at that.” 

— Will Jefferies, former Director, Wasatch Front Regional Council, Salt Lake City

Sometimes organizational changes can improve relationships. For example, when Jacob Snow began as General

Manager of the Regional Transportation Commission of

Southern Nevada, which is the MPO and also houses the

transit agency, he worked to establish greater separation and

independence between the transit operation and the MPO.

This change lent greater credibility both to transit and the

MPO process. Previously, without the firewalls established by

Snow, some observers felt transit was using its institutional

closeness to the MPO inappropriately to secure transportation funding for transit operations. Public works representatives in particular perceived the MPO as captive to the transit operator. According to a local planning official, “Jacob has

made the Transportation Commission a more independent

entity...It’s more effective now...The separation means that

elected officials are more supportive of making sure transit

gets a fair allocation of resources. It’s the same in the community—they’re starting to buy into the fact that transit needs to

be part of the transportation solution. [Before,]...you were

either pro-streets or -highway or pro-transit, and there was

no ability to get to compromise on those issues.”

Snow views the local governments that make up the

MPO/Transit Board as “probably our most important relationships and most important customers. They are the ones

that build or allow right-of-way for transit systems to operate

in, and they’re also our bosses.” To date, Snow has not yet

convinced the public works directors and traffic engineers in

the MPO committees of the need for transit to be part of the

region’s future. He advocates greater representation from

planners to help balance the playing field.

John Inglish

General Manager

Utah Transit Authority
Transit Can Be a Strategic Player in Your Region

19

can contribute to solving broader regional transportation

challenges. For example, in regions struggling to meet air

quality standards, some parties at the MPO table may not

realize the essential contribution transit can make. Making

them fully aware of transit’s role can result in increased direct

funding, preferential policies, or funding by others of programs that will greatly benefit your transit service.

Second, getting involved in broader issues can establish 

your GM and agency as leaders in community problemsolving. By assuming a broader role in regional activities, you

may develop enhanced credibility and respect from other

regional leaders, and that may produce greater influence in

future MPO decisionmaking and other political forums, as 

previously discussed in Section I.2 and below.

An interesting analogy relates to people who work in private

sector consulting. Some view themselves solely as technical

specialists or managers and claim they have no time to engage

in “marketing.” The most successful consultants, however,

recognize the value of being attuned to the bigger picture 

and will work hard to anticipate additional client needs with

which their firms might assist, even if this involves extra 

personal efforts to meet commitments. This section encourages you to be proactive “marketers” in non-traditional 

business areas in addition to everything else you do.

Research on the 25 transit operators interviewed for this

report found that opportunities for transit agencies to engage

in broader debates—and to win important benefits in the

process—included issues such as policy and program 

development for ITS, air quality, car pooling, HOV strategies,

urban development, national (and personal) security, and 

special events. There are undoubtedly many other fruitful 

opportunities to expand your agency’s role in MPO discussions.

Intelligent Transportation Systems

Recent transportation authorizations have amply funded ITS

research and demonstration activities, as well as broadened

the eligibility of current programs to include support of ITS.

Because ITS is intended to support both highways and 

transit, there have been many incentives for transit agencies to

be fully involved in planning and programming ITS.

“...if we could just get a balanced land use, air quality and transportation process, we might really be able to do something. To be optimally

effective, we need more input from planners than public works at the

MPO...the last thing you want is only traffic engineers making those

decisions, you need planners to look at the larger picture.” 

— Jacob Snow, RTC General Manager, Las Vegas transit agency

Finally, cross-fertilizing top staff between agencies can alleviate

friction and provide new opportunities. Senior transit people

often come from other agencies and vice versa—and this can

be healthy. A good example is Portland GM Fred Hansen,

who previously served as Deputy Administrator of U.S. EPA

and Director of Oregon’s Department of Environmental

Quality. His knowledge acquired from those experiences has

been quite valuable to Portland. It has enabled him to

advance transit in unique ways. In his words, “My role is 

larger regarding how to deal with congressional issues—it’s 

relevant to road and transit issues. I know many people on the

Federal side who are still involved with these decisions.”

I.4 Engage in Broader Issues

As extremely busy and beleaguered officials charged with

operating and expanding effective transit services, you might

ask why in the world you would want to take on additional

responsibilities that may seem peripheral to your main mission. There are at least two reasons to do so.

First, becoming engaged can often help you steer policies,

programs, and decisions in ways that benefit transit. It gives

you opportunities to show other parties at the table how transit

Denver, Colorado
For example, the MBTA in Boston reports that it worked to

ensure that monies programmed for ITS were not focused on

a single modal application. The agency supported flexibility

in order to preserve opportunities to pursue ITS projects that

benefit transit service.

In Albany, the CDTA stepped in as a strong partner in the

project to install a new progressive traffic signal system 

on New York State Route 5 (NY5), the most heavily traveled

transit corridor in the region. The state DOT had been 

leading this effort to replace signals at over 70 intersections in

the corridor and to provide transit signal priority at many of

those. However, the DOT was unable to advance the project

to engineering as quickly as local officials wished. At the

MPO’s request, CDTA took over the lead (via contract) 

and got the project ready for construction, even through 

95 percent of the work benefited road users. According to

Albany MPO Staff Director John Poorman, “This action

increased CDTA’s stature at our table because they were not

just showing up to advance their own agenda.”

WMATA participates faithfully

in the MPO’s ITS Committee,

and they are beginning to see

some benefits. Deputy General

Manager for Operations, Rick

Stevens, seems optimistic. “At

least we get a word about transit

to the table—otherwise they

would just do it [ITS] for highways. As it is, we have not done

much yet in the way of signal

prioritization for transit, but

we’re beginning to [see progress].”

In Arlington County, WMATA has worked with the County

and Arlington Transit to enhance bus service along Columbia

Pike. Known as Pike Ride, the service improvements include

plans for traffic signal priority to speed buses, as well as 

provide real-time arrival and departure information. This 

initiative, as with all Federal-aid projects, was funded through

decisions made by the MPO.

TRANSIT AT THE TABLE: A GUIDE TO PARTICIPATION IN METROPOLITAN DECISIONMAKING

20

In another ITS area, WMATA provided leadership that has

established the foundation for a regional electronic fare 

collection system. In 1999, WMATA’s SmarTrip card made

Washington, D.C. the first U.S. city to implement a smart

card system for its transit service. WMATA has also enabled

riders eligible for monthly employee transit benefits to 

receive their benefits—called Smart Benefits—electronically.

To facilitate deployment of the SmarTrip card across agencies

in the capital region, WMATA and its regional 

transit partners won Federal discretionary dollars to develop

a Regional Customer Service Center that will perform 

management, distribution, and transaction reconciliation

tasks for the participating agencies. Ultimately, this will link

the various fare collection systems into a single reporting and

management complex.

Air Quality

Many of you have benefited from CMAQ funding and 

participate in the air quality committees of your MPO.

Surprisingly, one transit representative said he had no interest

in air quality issues because they were not “transit-related.”

Two respondents expressed frustration at not being allowed

to participate in state air quality committees, even though

they felt they were a major part of the solution. Still, most of

you have benefited from the national concern about air quality

and their associated programs. For more information about

the benefits of CMAQ, see Section III.2.

Rick Stevens

Deputy General Manager 

for Operations 

Washington Metropolitan 

Area Transit Authority 

Washington, D.C.
Transit Can Be a Strategic Player in Your Region

21

Ride Sharing and Social Services Transportation

In Denver, the Regional Transit District (RTD) provides 

supplemental funding to the MPO to operate the regional

vanpooling program, and works closely with them to coordinate and improve it. This operational responsibility is a 

non-traditional role for the MPO, and the program is an

enormous success. It generates favorable images for both

agencies in the community and greatly enhances the

MPO/RTD relationship. There are no turf battles here to

spoil the relationships.

RTD also works with and provides funding to several municipal operators for services within Boulder, Littleton, and

Denver. These funds are programmed through the MPO’s

TIP development process, and leverage additional support

from non-DOT, health and human service sources. MPO

support of the coordination of planning and programming of

community-based services sponsored by DOT and nonDOT sources is important for effective resource utilization by

all operators.

High Occupancy Vehicle Lane Operation 

With the endorsement of Houston-Galveston Area Council

(Houston MPO), Houston Metro now operates and maintains HOV lanes on six major freeway corridors serving the

eight-county metropolitan area. Built primarily for buses, the

HOV system is now also used by vanpools and carpools, helping to reduce traffic and improve air quality. Virtually all of

the 100+ mile-HOV system has been constructed on donated

TxDOT right-of-way, and Houston Metro shares design and

construction costs that relate to Metro’s use of the HOV

lanes. According to one staff member, “That’s a helluva deal.”

This joint TxDOT/Houston Metro program is endorsed by

all in the region, and has the side benefit of creating strong

collaborative relationships between the two agencies.

Houston Metro staff views this relationship as an “opportunity

to show that we have regional cooperation. We may be 

atypical because the highway people and transit operator sit at

the same table and there’s no bloodletting. We have a 

successful HOV program and opportunities to support each

other’s projects.”

The Dallas Area Rapid Transit system (DART) is featured in

this section because of the benefits they obtained by participating in the implementation of the U.S. Department of

Energy (DOE) Clean Cities Program. DOE’s Clean Cities

Program supports public and private partnerships that deploy

alternative-fuel vehicles and build supporting infrastructure.

The program is voluntary and works with coalitions of local

stakeholders to develop alternative-fuel applications across 

the United States.

Dallas’ Clean Cities Technical Coalition (CCTC) is staffed

and administered by the MPO, and the group also advises 

on funding decisions for CMAQ dollars provided to the

region to address air quality issues. The Clean Fuel Policy

developed by the North Central Council of Governments

(Dallas MPO) uses CMAQ funds to purchase 

alternative-fuel vehicles. As an active member of the CCTC

and a long-time user of natural gas in its fleet, DART has

received CMAQ funds through this process to purchase

vehicles fueled by natural gas.

DART’s participation in the CCTC has also been important

for other reasons. First, by attending CCTC meetings,

DART representatives learned about the Texas Emissions

Reduction Program to reduce heavy-duty diesel emissions.

Administered by the Texas Commission on Environmental

Quality, the program was unknown to DART before a Clean

Cities meeting featured it in a presentation. When the state

issued a call for projects, DART received $7.6 million from

the program to refit 360 buses with exhaust gas re-circulation

equipment. According to local officials, the Emissions

Reduction Program “requires that projects have a cost effectiveness of $13,000/ton of NOx reduced. DART got into the

program early and was able to meet that dollar threshold.”

Second, as a Coalition participant and an operator that has a

well-established alternative-fuel fleet, DART is an important

resource for other transit operators in the region. Says a local

official, “It’s important for us that established fleets be a part

of the coalition—to advise new fleets.”
TRANSIT AT THE TABLE: A GUIDE TO PARTICIPATION IN METROPOLITAN DECISIONMAKING

22

CMAQ funding, sponsoring physical transit-related improvements in the center. To accomplish this, they put together a

broad coalition of interests.

“It was easy for Metro Transit to win approval for their Urban Centers

Project because it directly met the grant program’s goals. The policy was

to have transit that developed urban centers. Metro sought funding to

develop a conventional transit center, as a focal point for transit, and it

worked with the individual towns. Their efforts were directly supportive

of the urban centers policy in the regional plan. This well-crafted plan

played into all policy directions in the program. The objectives were to

improve access, development, and the economy.”

— King Cushman, Director of Transportation Activities, Puget Sound

Regional Council (Seattle MPO) 

Bicycle Facilities 

Seattle Metro Transit has also become more bicycle-friendly

through CMAQ funds requested by the Puget Sound Regional

Council.

Assistant Director of Metro Transit Ron Posthuma explains

why. “It is also true that to win in these processes (negotiations

for highway/transit fund flexing), you have to meet others’

criteria and find things that you can find allies for inside state

DOTs and cities. So transit has had to adjust its priorities to

do things that are more broadly acceptable...e.g., a while ago,

we got a CMAQ grant to install bike racks on buses. If we

had had to pay for bike racks, we probably wouldn’t have

done it, but with CMAQ, it was OK. Because it’s not your

own money to start with, you do more innovative things and

things that sell in less modally constricted environments. I

think this is positive because it gets people out of a narrower

view of what should be done to convince a wider group of

what’s the best use of their dollars. Otherwise, you can get in

your own box and never get out.”

Security

Since the terrorist events of September 11, 2001, considerable

attention has been directed to the potential roles of MPOs in

coordinating transportation planning in anticipation of security incidents.Transit agencies might play a leadership role, as

illustrated by the WMATA example below. Mort Downey, a

“My sense is that there’s been a

major revolution in TxDOT’s support

of transit in Houston. In the 80s,

TxDOT didn’t support transit at all.

The state was not hostile. TxDOT

simply disregarded mass transit.

But the development of HOV lanes

changed their thinking. It was the

first real opportunity for partnership

between transit and the state DOT.

The next milestone in this growing

partnership has been in the planning

for exclusive transit facilities. In a

recent major corridor study completed

by TxDOT, the state strongly advocated for preservation of right-ofway for exclusive transit use as a key component of their locally 

preferred alternative. TxDOT is currently constructing “managed

lanes” on a major freeway which will allow free access to transit

and high occupancy vehicles while charging a fee for users.”

— Alan Clark, Director of Transportation Planning, Houston-Galveston 

Area Council (Houston MPO)

Urban Development 

Until recently, many of you did not have much involvement

in land use and urban development issues, assuming they were

well beyond your control so there was no benefit in attempting

to become involved. However, the experiences of Portland,

Oregon; a variety of Canadian and European cities; and various

cities where major transit capital investments are being

planned and implemented demonstrates that increasing numbers of transit agencies are now getting involved and making a

difference that greatly benefits their regions. Examples of

successful collaboration appear in Section II.3 of this report.

Seattle Metro’s experience with one project is described here.

In a recent round of flex funding negotiations with the MPO,

elected officials expressed a desire for projects supporting

urban centers. A stakeholder then asked whether this meant

projects inside the center or those supporting travel to the center.

Transit definitely had an advantage with the former interpretation—projects inside the center—and lobbied the MPO to

request their projects. As a result, projects inside the center

became a separate category and Seattle Metro Transit received

an Urban Center Development Grant of $5.5 million in

Alan Clark

Director of 

Transportation Planning

Houston-Galveston Area Council
Transit Can Be a Strategic Player in Your Region

23

that luxury, WMATA GM Dick White proposed, instead, that they do a

debrief—considering lessons learned (right and wrong) — and decide

quickly what to do in the future. “Lock us in a room together for a

month,” he said, “and we’ll figure out how to get it together.” This

caught the attention of many local elected officials, who pushed the MPO

to understand the operators’ viewpoints and expedite the planning.

In White’s own words, “In essence, I challenged the Metropolitan

Washington Council of Governments (COG) [Washington D.C. MPO] to

step up and serve as the place where everyone could come together to

develop a Regional Emergency Coordination Plan (RECP). Initially,

COG was unwilling to do so, but I persisted in mobilizing the various

functional components of the COG (police, fire/EMS, transportation,

public health, etc.), each of which has an organized Task Force in the

COG. In particular, we

pushed the MPO...to take

on the transportation planning coordination activities.”

White also pushed his

approach through another

committee comprised of the

top appointed staff positions from each of the

local governments throughout the metropolitan area.

Asked what motivated him

to assume regional leadership for security/disaster

planning, White offered

four reasons: 

“My motivation was due to my strong feelings that the most important

responsibility WMATA has is to provide for the safety and security of its

customers and its employees, and thereby, retaining and hopefully growing their confidence in us. It is also due to my recognition of the unique

threats and challenges of operating in the National Capital Region (NCR).

Likewise, it is due to my clear understanding that this complex region

must be able to proactively communicate and coordinate across all levels

of government to prepare for new threats, and that the regional transit

operator is a natural institution to move these processes along.

Finally, it is due to a recognition that our transit system must have

strong working relationships with all police, fire, and emergency management agencies in the NCR in order to deter, detect, respond, and

recover from threats which were previously unimaginable.” 

Richard White

General Manager

Washington Metropolitan Area 

Transit Authority 

member of the National Academy of Science’s Committee on

Science and Technology for Countering Terrorism observes,

“Dick White saw an enormous leadership/coordination void in

the region and just jumped in and filled it.” He believes that the

District of Columbia and WMATA are now “far ahead of the

pack” in preparing a coordinated approach to terrorist attacks.

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Provides

Security Leadership

After 9/11, it was clear that better coordination was needed if the

Washington Metropolitan Area was to deal more effectively with future

terrorist and other disaster events. New policies and procedures were

required to address both increased security and evacuation planning.

WMATA’s Rick Stevens explains that most of the region’s problems

stemmed from the extreme fragmentation that characterizes this multistate area, which also serves as the nation’s capital. Until then, major

regional players had been operating with blinders on. Stevens provided

a sampling of some of the many coordination problems that existed at

all levels of government. 

• The District of Columbia was dealing with the street network, but

not engaging the states of Maryland and Virginia. 

• During a major snowstorm, the Virginia DOT opened I-66 

(usually an HOV facility) to all traffic, enabling anyone to drive

into DC although the District had not yet plowed its streets. 

• The Department of Defense (DOD), an agency that can commandeer any facility in the region they need in an emergency,

had decided to use I-66 as an escape route for people in high

levels of government, but had neglected to inform state and

local governments of their plans. 

• WMATA and the smaller transit systems needed better communication and coordination.

• Everyone needed to work with the Federal government. As the

major employer, for example, releasing all their employees at the

same time in an emergency would have disastrous consequences.

In recognition of the tremendous need for better security and incidentresponse coordination, the MPO convened meetings of the major participants. Although everyone was at the table, there was no clear sense

of immediacy or consensus on direction. The MPO wanted to do an

extensive planning exercise, developing future scenarios and plans, but

this would have taken a long time. Believing the region could not afford
Special Opportunities

From time to time, a special event will occur in a community

that may provide opportunities to do things differently or 

better. (The bigger the event, the better, of course.) The principle here is simply to be alert to such opportunities and try

to make the most of them.

The best example found in this study was the Olympic games

in Salt Lake City. This event triggered an enormous amount

of flexible funding and special grants for transit, and also laid

a foundation for strong intergovernmental cooperation, which

GM John Inglish hopes will continue. “It’s very important

that UDOT and the transit authorities work as partners and

work together at the highest levels,” he advised. “That’s not

common elsewhere, but it is here.” These funding resources,

ultimately, flowed through the MPO planning process, which

provided an opportunity for increased coordination.The Olympics

accelerated the opening and use of the City’s new LRT system.

I.5 Create Supplemental Groups to Fill Gaps

“In Cleveland, we have five transit systems. Until recently, we didn’t

coordinate among ourselves. Even the bike people and the cities coordinated better then we did, and they got more money. Now we’re better

coordinated and are becoming more aggressive. We’re asking for

money and getting it” 

— Joe Calabrese, GM of the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Agency

(Cleveland MPO) 

In addition to formal MPO Board and committee involvement,

some transit agencies have found it useful to form supplemental coordinating groups among peers to enhance regional

communication and strategy development. These appear most

often to be coordination forums for transit operators in a

region, but they sometimes encompass other key agency

stakeholders as well. Such forums can greatly assist regional

decisionmaking as shown below.

Augmenting the MPO Process - Transit Agency Forums

The benefits of communication and coordination among

transit operators serving a region are notable. By sharing

common problems and concerns, new solutions and strategies

might be found. Also, when transit interests work in concert,

they have greater strength.

TRANSIT AT THE TABLE: A GUIDE TO PARTICIPATION IN METROPOLITAN DECISIONMAKING

24

Seattle Has Three Different Forums for Transit Operators

• The first is the MPO’s Transit Operators Committee, a forum

for transit operators to discuss transit issues and make recommendations to the Policy Committee. With meetings held quarterly, GMs attending once a year, and with MPO staff support,

the Committee addresses a number of transit funding and

operational issues. The group had a significant controversial

issue to address in 2002 related to the distribution of FTA

Urbanized Area formula funds (Section 5307). There was disagreement with the group’s recommendations by one operator,

who threatened to appeal. Rather than engage in a potentially difficult and divisive discussion with elected officials about

this topic, the group decided to satisfy the appealing operator,

thereby preserving their unified control over this pot of money.

In calmer times, the group serves primarily as an informationsharing and discussion forum.

• Sound Transit, a major operator in the region, coordinates a

three-county “Transit Integration Group,” comprised of GMs

and senior staff, to develop strategies that make the regional

system more seamless to users. Largely driven by Sound

Transit’s program, and covering an area smaller than the

MPO’s, its primary focus is on the regional fare structure.

Other issues addressed by the Group include information–sharing and coordination of operational and labor issues. The

members are satisfied with their participation, and the revenue

sharing arrangements that have been developed. 

• Because decisionmaking has become decentralized in the

Seattle Region, former Metro Transit GM Rick Walsh feels the

real political dialogue and decisions take place for his agency

in King County’s “Regional Transit Committee,” which advises

the County Council. Elected officials of the multiple small cities

within King County participate in this committee. While this

committee operates outside the formal MPO structure, their

recommendations are adopted provided they are consistent

with regional MPO goals. 

Bay Area Has Partnership Board

The multiple power centers in the San Francisco Region can be very

effective when they are brought together to speak with a single voice.

However, the Federally structured MPO alone cannot make this happen. Thus, the Bay Area Region has created supplemental organizations to open up additional avenues of participation. One of these is

the Partnership Board.
Transit Can Be a Strategic Player in Your Region

25

After passage of ISTEA, Larry Dahms, former Director of the

Metropolitan Transportation Commission, felt that since the region

was so large (nine counties) and was generating large new sources of

flexible funds at the state, local, and regional levels, a new organization was needed to improve coordination among the growing number

of transportation funding and operating agencies. So he initiated creation of the Bay Area Partnership Board. It brought together all the

county-level congestion management agencies (CMAs), transit operators, and other regional agencies. MTC recognized that 

it did not make sense to coordinate Federal, state, and local funds 

independently of each other; all these funds needed to be evaluated

together to leverage them for best results, and the CMAs were the

logical place to do much of this coordination under California state

law. Therese McMillan, MTC Deputy Director of Policy, notes that,

“Larry Dahms, to his credit, recognized we needed a new paradigm

for working with locals.” The Partnership waned a bit after several

years, but has been revived recently as a result of pressure from transit operators like Pete Cipolla. The board now meets more regularly,

has renewed attendance by senior executives of the member agencies

(including all the major transit providers), and has regained its original high level of influence. The Partnership’s recommendations are

generally accepted by MTC, which continues to staff it. 

Although transit agencies in the Bay area still get much of their

money from Federal formula funds, flexible Federal, state, and local

funding decisions are determined largely through the Partnership

Board. This strong link to all the transportation operating and funding

agencies provides a distinct advantage to the MPO process and has

increased the influence of the transit agencies. More information

regarding the Bay Area Partnership Board can be found at:

http://www.bayareapartnership.org 

Augmenting the MPO Process - Diverse Agency Forums

Agency officials also may choose to expand their coordination to venues beyond the MPO committee structure in order

to communicate more frequently and/or informally. By not

being in a public setting, they can also be more candid in their

discussions of tradeoff and compromise. By providing a venue

for informal, “unofficial” collaboration, these forums may

facilitate early resolution of controversial issues, thereby

strengthening the MPO process by freeing the MPO agenda

to address broader regional policies.

Sometimes such coordination can be quite informal. Former

President Shirley DeLibero of Houston Metro reported she

had meetings in her office every two weeks with selected

agency heads “just so we know what’s on the horizon.”

Participants included heads of the MPO, flood control

agency, Public Works Department, toll roads, and County.

She reported numerous benefits resulting from these biweekly meetings. A key one was cost savings. Because all the

participants were trying to do so many different things, close

coordination could identify opportunities for lower-cost solutions like installation of traffic management strategies rather

than road widening. Having the MPO head present gives a

broader perspective as the region’s strategic plan is being

developed. The MPO Director typically has already heard

from some developers who just want roads and not rail. Now

the Director hears transit’s side, as well as how effectively

highway folks are working on mobility problems with transit

people from the highway sector. The group also helped to

enhance Houston Metro’s credibility—they used the group as

a sounding board when they wanted to put out a system

plan—their perspective helped them see pitfalls they might

have with the community as well as how to best roll-out 

the plan.

Dallas, Texas
TRANSIT AT THE TABLE: A GUIDE TO PARTICIPATION IN METROPOLITAN DECISIONMAKING

26

FTA and FHWA, plus headquarters staff in some cases.This

certification is necessary to maintain the metropolitan area’s

eligibility for continued Federal highway and transit funding.

What gets certified is the MPO’s planning “process,” not just

the MPO organization. The planning process is a combined

effort of the MPO organization, the transit operator(s), and

the state DOT, as well as others. Certification examines the

extent to which this process is properly established, up to date,

and working successfully to meet all Federal requirements.

The Federal requirements are both procedural and substantive.

The procedural requirements deal with such issues as proper

representation on boards and committees, public involvement, timely production and updating of financially 

constrained plans and implementation programs, and the use

of a unified planning work program to coordinate the planning

efforts of all the transit, highway, and other partners who 

contribute to the overall effort. The substantive elements 

are the seven planning factors set forth in TEA-21 that

should be considered in planning processes. They are: (1)

economic vitality of the region, (2) preservation of the existing

transportation system, (3) environmental protection, energy 

conservation, and improved quality of life, (4) efficient system

management and operation, (5) increased accessibility and

mobility options, (6) enhanced safety and security of the

transportation system, and (7) better integration of the transportation modes. Transit has a key role to play in achieving

each of these goals.

During certification, the Federal team reviews the work of

the MPO in addressing all planning requirements, resulting

in a decision on compliance with both the letter and spirit of

the law. This review includes: (a) a desk-audit of documents

submitted by planning participants, including the transit

operator(s), (b) a site visit by the Federal team, which involves

an extended meeting with all the main players—including

the transit operator(s), as well as a public meeting to receive

comments from other agencies, advocacy groups, and the

general public, (c) preparation of a draft report for review by

the MPO participants—including the transit operator(s),

and (d) issuance of the final Federal decision, which is rendered by the top field officials of FTA and FHWA.

Portland’s Agencies Meet Weekly to Collaborate

An informal interagency group called the Transportation Management

Advisory Committee (TMAC) has been meeting weekly since its inception. Sometimes characterized affectionately as the “transportation

mafia,” TMAC was initiated by Tri-Met’s Dick Feeney as a group to

lobby the Federal government for LRT funding in the 1980s. It was

convened by transit operators, but the MPO, SDOT, and local governments were involved from the outset and remain members today.

After the light rail transit (LRT) funding was secured, there was general

consensus that the group could perform other useful functions, and they

continued meeting. Meetings are held for any and everything relating

to Federal transportation legislation, prioritization of local and regional

needs, and debate over local and regional priorities for new legislation

and appropriations. The decision forum for these priorities is at the

MPO table, but this is an ad hoc discussion group that allows for good

flow of information among major agency stakeholders. One major function is to consider and develop positions on a wide array of legislative

proposals under consideration by Congress or that have been developed

by industry organizations like APTA and AASHTO or their committees.

These are then fed into the MPO via the MPO TMAC representative.

Chaired by Tri-Met, TMAC is an extremely informal group that does

not keep minutes, and simply hashes things out at the staff level and

works through issues. It is characterized by Tri-Met GM Fred Hansen

as a “no-holds barred kind of effort—they get to rustle stuff through

and this allows consensus to be built.” Most of the jurisdictions of

JPACT (the transportation policy committee of the MPO) are at the

table or represented in some fashion. In Hansen’s words, “Dick Feeney

created it to keep all of us going in the same direction.” 

I.6 Capitalize on Certification Reviews 

“Too often, I’ve seen transit operators sit on the side and let the planning process occur all around them. Usually, they are not full participants in the Certification Reviews or UPWP development, but they

should be.”

— A USDOT official familiar with the MPO process 

The Certification Process

At least every three years, all MPOs serving areas of 200,000

populations or more must be certified by a Federal review team

as being in compliance with all the requirements of the MPO

process. The Federal team includes field representatives from
Transit Can Be a Strategic Player in Your Region

27

The Federal decision may certify the MPO process for the

next three years if it is in substantial compliance, certify the

process conditionally for a shorter time pending mandatory

improvements, or withhold certification. Withholding is very

rare, but short-term conditional certifications are relatively

common. When compliance with Federal law or regulation is

in question, the Federal team attaches deadlines for the MPO

to take mandatory corrective actions and monitors progress

toward compliance with those directives. More than 100 corrective actions were issued over the period 1996-2000, with

many calling for more explicit consideration of transit in the

activities and products of planning. The planning issues cited

included the long range plan, travel forecasting techniques

and supporting data, and compliance with Title VI of the

Civil Rights Act.

In addition to mandatory corrective actions, many certification reviews result in advisory recommendations intended to

provide direction and assist MPOs in improving the quality

of their work. These represent opportunities for the Federal

review team to consider the overall role of transit operators in

decisionmaking and promote more transit-friendly practices.

Over the period 1996-2000, Federal review teams provided

nearly 300 advisory recommendations, several of which were

transit-focused, such as:

• Revise MPO agreements to include new transit operators 

• Use the UPWP to better coordinate with transit operators 

• Better integrate the transit plan into the MPO plan 

• Better coordinate the transit agency and MPO staffs 

• Better coordinate with other programs such as Access to Jobs,

and Special Services Vans 

Transit Operator Participation in the Certification Review

Transit operators are involved with certification to varying

degrees. Most are familiar with it, but few see it as a major

opportunity for strengthening their roles in MPO activities.

Even the MPOs sometimes do not see much benefit from

certification. As St. Louis MPO Executive Director Les

Sterman observed, “We have had good reviews generally, but

it feels more helpful when Federal agencies are on the scene

and participate in the organization rather than coming in cold

every three years to do a certification review. I think the Feds

have been generally helpful, but certification review probably

doesn’t have any significance in that process.”

Certification reviews are required to take place relatively

infrequently, on a triennial cycle, and do not occur in the

smaller MPOs (under 200,000 population). Therefore, these

reviews may seldom provide quick fixes to urgent issues.

However, by knowing the certification review process and

planning ahead for it, MPOs and transit agencies can use that

format and subjective matter to assess their work as often as

they wish, without the presence of a Federal review team.

Some transit operators indicated that they would be reluctant

to use a certification review, with the Federal team present 

to raise serious issues for fear that it might hurt the region’s

eligibility for continued Federal funding or damage cooperation among their peers in the MPO.

Nevertheless, several of you raised issues as you contributed 

to this study that could be raised in your certification review,

such as too little contact with FTA field staff, or having to deal

with a highway-oriented MPO or state DOT. The potential

benefits of raising these issues during certification follow.

Baltimore, Maryland
TRANSIT AT THE TABLE: A GUIDE TO PARTICIPATION IN METROPOLITAN DECISIONMAKING

I

28

Certification Benefit: Contact with FTA Staff 

Certification reviews are intense experiences that offer

opportunities to raise your visibility with FTA. Especially if

your metropolitan area is relatively small and remote from

FTA’s regional office, this may be one of the best opportunities you’ll have to fully explain your situation and needs to a

sympathetic listener.

Taking full advantage of this opportunity would include providing insightful and well-written briefing materials in time

for the desk review, attending and fully participating in

appropriate sessions of the field visit, recommending transitfriendly individuals and groups for the Federal review team to

meet with and hear from during the review, and even initiating contact in advance of the review to outline concerns.

Several of you told us how helpful FTA is when they are

asked to focus on an individual transit property.

While the certification review is a specific legislative requirement, Federal oversight of planning processes actually is an

ongoing effort, with multiple opportunities for expedited,

focused attention to the types of quality factors identified in

this report. In awarding grants for metropolitan and

statewide planning, FTA field leadership considers the quality of planning performed by the MPO and where improvements are needed. At the time of joint FTA and FHWA

approval of the statewide Transportation Improvement

Program, a “finding” is issued by those agencies that the

underlying planning processes are being carried out in full

accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements. And

in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas, joint

FTA and FHWA determination of the “conformity” between

transportation and air quality plans considers many factors,

including the adequacy of the underlying planning process.

Finally, transit operators in receipt of Urbanized Formula

funding from FTA (Section 5307) are posed a series of planning questions as part of the FTA’s grantee-based Triennial

Review program. All of these occasions represent opportunities to call attention to any concerns or opportunities for

improvement regarding planning in your area.

Certification Benefit:Dealing with a Highway-Oriented MPO 

To ensure that the transportation plans and programs of

MPOs have a multimodal context, Congress has authorized

funding from both FTA and FHWA to support the work of

MPOs. One of you told us that in spite of receiving joint

FTA and FHWA funding, the MPO paid little attention to

the needs of transit. This was evidenced by the absence of

transit ridership forecasting as a component of the MPO’s

modeling process and the MPO’s failure to prepare a transit

element for its transportation system plan. Another told of

frequently putting transit proposals on the table that were

always voted down. Still another said that the MPO did not

recognize the important role transit could play in helping to

comply with air quality standards.

Although certification may not quickly solve such deep-seated

problems, these periodic reviews, and your internal discussions to prepare for them, provide opportunities to call attention to your concerns. Here are excerpts from selected certification review reports that illustrate how transit-related issues

have been raised and addressed.

• The MPO is encouraged to obtain early input from FRA and

the state DOT’s Rail Division on the four transit corridors.

• The 2003 update to the LRTP must demonstrate long

range and short range strategies for an integrated intermodal transportation system.

• In the next plan update, the MPO must identify locations

of minority and low-income populations, assess the distribution of benefits and impacts of transportation investments, and more thoroughly address the issue of allocation of

resources to benefit diverse populations.

• Within six months the MPO should identify actions that

can be implemented to address the transit operators’

concerns regarding effective representation on the policy

committee.

• The MPO should complete the Transit Needs Analysis and

include its results in the plan even prior to the 

next update.
• In the last review, we (the Federal review team) recommended that the area consider implementing service changes

shown in its transit development plan. This continues to 

be an area of discussion among the localities and the transit

operator, and the review team continues to encourage 

the area to explore options for funding the transit 

development plan.

• The review team notes that a number of organizations

have been critical of the MPO. They maintain that lowincome and minority populations are not getting fair consideration of their need for more efficient and effective transit service. The review team believes that, while the MPO

has taken some steps to address environmental justice issues,

further work needs to be done.... We...encourage

groups...to take a more active role in the planning

process.... We believe that the concerns raised... merit careful review and should be addressed by the MPO.

• The team recommends that the MPO continue to review

the planning process...to ensure that demands for additional transit service, as reflected in public comments, are 

adequately addressed.

Certification Benefit: Dealing with a Highway-Oriented

State DOT

In Boston, a certification-driven redesignation added local

elected officials, the City of Boston in particular, to the MPO

policy board for the first time. Compared to the former statedominated structure, the new MPO has a different outlook

on transit. In the words of one participant, “The new MPO

is very sensitive to transit issues—locals are interested in shuttle buses, connections between employers and commuter rail

stations. Local influence has caused the MPO to look at those

issues more extensively than we had before. Previously

MBTA was interested much more in capital intensive projects

and in fine-tuning conventional bus routes than in running

shuttle buses but now they work with TMAs and employers

who provide the bulk of this service to ensure that connections are made.”

Transit Can Be a Strategic Player in Your Region

29

• The public involvement process must be proactive and support early and continuing involvement of the public in the

development of transportation plans and TIPs.... The

MPO has agreed to report on a quarterly basis on efforts to

enhance the public involvement process.

• The next update of the long range transportation plan

should include summaries of the various planning studies

completed (such as bicycle, pedestrian, transit...).

You should not wait for the Federal review team to notice

such problems. You may realize more benefit from the effort

by doing advance work and being proactive. This could

include alerting the team, in advance, to departures from

good practice and providing them with supporting facts and

testimony from adversely affected parties. This is important

for the Federal team to receive if they are to carry-through

with recommended changes to the work of the MPO and/or

corrective actions. Federal review teams often have a hard

time making the case for needed changes without local 

support, and they don’t have time to dig out little-known 

facts without local help. Here are excerpts from selected 

certification review reports that illustrate how these reviews

have picked up locally suggested issues.

Portland, Oregon
TRANSIT AT THE TABLE: A GUIDE TO PARTICIPATION IN METROPOLITAN DECISIONMAKING

30

Transit and MPO leaders alike agree that state DOTs are not

always as responsive to the needs of local jurisdictions when

allocating CMAQ or surface transportation program (STP)

funds within metropolitan areas as those jurisdictions wished.

There were occasions, too, where transit agencies were being

excluded from participation in corridor studies. As suggested

by the Boston case, using the certification review process to

bring the state DOT and MPO closer together can increase

attention to transit needs.

The following excerpts from selected certification review

reports illustrate how the need to strengthen the state

DOT/MPO relationship was addressed in the review.

• The state transit and turnpike authorities should be more

active participants in the MPO process.

• Redraw state DOT districts to be consistent with MPO

planning boundaries.

• Develop procedures to guide cooperation between the state

DOT and MPOs for project selection.

• (There) needs to be a formalized procedure for incorporating MPO TIPs into the state DOT’s STIP, including

informing the MPO.

• Indicate in the STIP document that the STIP isn’t final

until metropolitan TIPs are approved by the state DOT.

Getting More Out of Certification 

Certification reviews address the relationships among the

MPO partners, the practices they use, and the degree to

which transit is accepted as a full partner in the process.

Certification provides an opportunity to raise important transit and multimodal coordination issues, but it may be up to

you to raise them, to participate more fully in the process, and

to persist until you get the acceptance you need.

In Columbus, Ohio, where the

relationship with the transit

operator is especially close, MPO

Executive Director Bill Habig

takes certifications very seriously.

As he explains, “We’ve had several good certification rounds,

and we’ve always tried to implement the recommendations as

soon as possible.” Both the

transit agency and the MPO

benefit by working together to

be up to date and learn from

other metropolitan areas.

The documents you submit for the desk review can identify

the key issues needing attention in your region, and you can

recommend transit-friendly persons and organizations in

your region for the review team to talk to. With the Federal

team as a catalyst, certification provides an opportunity to

help sensitize all the parties in the planning process to the

benefits of including transit as a full partner in solving the

region’s problems.

Involvement and input from citizens and community leaders

to the certification process is important, as well. Commenting

on a recent certification process in a major metropolitan area,

a DOT official said that environmental justice “has been a

hot topic for a while here, and we received specific EJ complaints. Our findings on environmental justice have been met

with approval by many of the groups that spoke with us individually and at public hearings during the certification

review....The work on environmental justice stemming from

this certification review will help prevent future Title VI

Bill Habig

Executive Director

Mid-Ohio Regional 

Planning Commission 

Dallas, Texas
complaints here....” The implications of this for transit are

important. Providing appropriate levels of transit service to

low-income and minority populations is at the center of

many transportation-related EJ issues.

Self-Assessment Can Help 

The compliance topics reviewed during certification provide

a convenient checklist for a transit operator (and others) to

use in two ways: (1) preparing to participate in, and get the

most out of, the formal certification review, and (2) assessing,

at any time, how well transit operators are participating in

and getting the full benefits of the MPO process. As previously mentioned, this may be a guide for self-assessment in

large metropolitan areas not just during certification, but 

at any time. It also can be used in the MPOs of smaller 

metropolitan areas (less than 200,000 population), where 

certification is not required. As a final note, MPOs in all 

metropolitan areas, regardless of whether a Federal certification is required, must self-certify their compliance with all the

laws and regulations applicable to the Federal surface transportation programs. The question for them is whether they

will just sign the self-certification form, or whether they will

perform a careful review of their own—including their 

transit operator and others—before they execute the form. If

they do this, they may find it useful to follow a checklist such

as the one in Appendix A to make sure the transit operator is 

adequately involved.

Transit Can Be a Strategic Player in Your Region

31

Portland, Oregon
MARTA

Atlanta, Georgia
This chapter shows how you can achieve benefits by vigorous

participation in your region’s transportation planning

processes—long range transportation systems planning, all

corridor planning, and coordinating transportation and land

use planning. Planning sets the stage for future investment

decisions and provides the opportunity for influencing other

transit-supportive decisions. You may lead these activities or

contribute substantively, representing your interests, in the

efforts of others. What matters most is that you be a highly

active participant.

Funding is provided on a formula basis from FTA and

FHWA to support staff work and consultant efforts 

underlying all aspects of planning conducted by the MPO.

These monies are scheduled and programmed in the Unified

Transportation Planning Work Program (UPWP), the 

budget document of MPO work activities supporting all

aspects of the metropolitan planning process. Included in the

work activities funded through the UPWP are regional

mobility needs assessment, corridor and subarea systems

planning studies, preparation of the Federally required plan

and program, and all underlying database and planning

methods maintenance. The UPWP, therefore, represents an

important opportunity to ensure that transit is a component,

or is at least considered, in the information provided to 

MPO decisionmakers.

A traditional planning barrier for transit has been the inability

of regional transportation officials to provide for credible

modal split estimation and related data. Fortunately, most

transit agencies contacted for this study seem satisfied with

the modeling processes in their areas, with the exception of

continuing complaints about delays in producing the forecasts. The study found a woefully-lacking model in only one

region where, interestingly, the transit agency had never participated in the development of that area’s UPWP, including

the development, testing, and application of travel forecasting

models. If that transit operator had participated with the

other MPO partners in developing the UPWP, perhaps they

could have pressed the MPO to use their FTA planning

grants for model improvement. If travel forecasting models

are sensitive to transit operations and service parameters,

transit options may be more seriously considered in the

regional, subarea, and corridor studies that use those models.

This could, in turn, improve the justification for including

transit options in the MPO’s plan and program.

In at least one metropolitan area it was reported that the

MPO transportation plan had no transit element. In retrospect, the UPWP should have been the vehicle for the transit operator in that area to use in ensuring that the MPO

would produce a transportation plan with a transit element,

including transit-oriented development plans that make

sense. In some areas, the UPWP has also been used as the

vehicle for consolidating the transit and highway planning

grants to the MPO in a single package, which could be

another strategy in promoting multimodal planning.

There is a wide range of other obstacles that can affect transit participation in metropolitan planning. These include differences between FTA and FHWA funding programs, weak

public involvement programs, city/suburb differences in

transportation and land use policies, and limited assessment

of benefits and burdens of proposed transportation investments across socio-economic groups. Community input to

the MPO process is particularly important to you, as citizens

usually demand more transit service to their communities.

When transportation plans are prepared without open, ongoing public input, lack credible, multimodal analytical methods

for assessing the regional benefits and burdens, or are not

based upon a comprehensive needs assessment, communities

who use transit at higher rates than the general population

may be short-changed. And, if the need for these services is

understated in planning analyses, transit will receive a lower

priority in the regional plan and program.

A disturbing trend in some areas is the development of

regional plans without consideration of transportation needs

from a regional perspective. Instead, these plans are based on

local priorities, tied to local funding sources, and are very

often suburban-based. The result is that MPO plans can

II

Transit Can Be a Positive

Force in Transportation and

Land Use Planning

33
become a compendium of local plans stapled together. This

appears to be the case in some of the regions looked at in this

review. Decentralized decisionmaking, while forging a closer

connection with local political processes, may enable the

“who gets what, when, and where” of politics to play a

stronger role than planning and funding deliberations based

upon objective, regional criteria, combined with open public

involvement. Transportation studies, policies, plans, and programs, when prepared from a regional perspective, seem more

in transit’s best interest than decisionmaking dominated by

parochial interests.

Other more visible and direct problems stem from the overt

exclusion of transit participants in regional and corridor studies,

as well as from air quality planning. Study participants cited

instances where state DOTs refused to allow transit 

representation on highway corridor study advisory committees

and other occasions where transit involvement was not permitted on air quality groups dealing with conformity issues.

A less extreme but still objectionable barrier occurs when

transit is an invited participant, but is expected to refrain from

commenting on any issues other than specific transit issues.

As stated previously, the FTA/FHWA-funded UPWP 

supports MPO staff work on these activities, providing you

with an important means to challenge questionable practices.

Finally, political changes at state and local levels can help or

hinder transit’s prospects in the planning arena, depending on

the degree to which transportation, and transit in particular,

was a platform issue. Certainly, politics influences transportation decisionmaking in a region (it seems to vary widely), and

the transit-friendliness of key incumbents.

The remainder of this section describes effective strategies

used by other transit operators to deal with these barriers.

II.1 Participate Fully in Preparing the Long 

Range Plan

“It’s all one big cooperative process. We’ve prepared very few LRP 

elements that didn’t get implemented. Those that didn’t are still 

awaiting funding. ”

— Will Jefferies, former Director, Wasatch Front Regional Council 

(Salt Lake City MPO)

TRANSIT AT THE TABLE: A GUIDE TO PARTICIPATION IN METROPOLITAN DECISIONMAKING

34

Transit officials participate in developing the long range

plan (LRP) as part of the MPO planning processes for a

variety of reasons and in different ways. It is not surprising

that satisfaction with the effort seems to increase with the

level of participation and degree of influence achieved.

Benefits

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

(WMATA) sees active participation in the MPO’s plan

development process as a good way to move decisionmakers

in more multimodal directions. By playing a large role in

development of the constrained plan and working with other

transit advocates, WMATA has helped to enhance the transit component of the MPO’s recent vision plan, which has a

longer-range time horizon than the official MPO plan.

WMATA Director of Business Planning and Project

Development, Rick Stevens, observes that transit agencies are

better prepared for LRP negotiations because they are

required by FTA to have more detailed information on rehabilitation and expansion needs than highway departments,

and they also have a better handle on long range operating

expenses. However, WMATA officials continue to work with

MPO leaders to enhance the multimodal needs-based project prioritizing process.

Portland Metro contributes to the LRP development process

in their area by providing both technical and policy staff to

assist with establishing funding priorities. Their efforts were

rewarded when their Interstate Max Project was ranked as

the region’s number one priority, with flex funds awarded to 

the project.

Utah Transit Authority’s GM John Inglish also sees project implementation as a major motivator for participation in preparing the MPO’s

long range plan. He notes that “Ultimately, the MPO holds the key to

the bank on two levels: 1) We can’t have a priority project that won’t

be a priority for the political leaders, and the LRP process defines our

program. 2) Once the priorities are set, these are the priorities that

FTA will recognize...you want your priorities to be the MPO’s priorities.” In addition, Inglish believes that having an objective entity (the

MPO) endorse the LRP “gives public comfort that UTA is not imposing

its nefarious will on them.” 
“We work with City Department of Transportation staff,

who staff the MPO and...do the LRP work for the MPO.

Because we are an equal city department, we’re very involved

in meetings, cabinet meetings—our technical staff is very

involved and there is lots of interest.” His transit board

adopts the transit plan, which then goes to the MPO for

adoption as part of the region’s plan.

Thus, while there are many approaches to preparing the transit element of an MPO’s LRP, the effectiveness of the techniques vary widely in terms of transit involvement and the

objectivity of the process. At the MPO level, the major concern to many transit officials is a lack of regional project prioritization at the MPO than is principally based on objective,

collaboratively developed criteria, rather than on available

funding under each source.

Transit Can Be a Positive Force in Transportation and Land Use Planning

35

Paul Skoutelas, CEO of the Port Authority of Allegheny

County (Pittsburgh area), has worked closely with the MPO

over the past several years and is currently co-chairing the

transit portion of their LRP update while MPO staff are

heavily involved in the Port Authority’s Strategic Transit

Visioning Study. He stresses the value of obtaining MPO

concurrence and support for a long range transit vision. “The

fact that we have MPO buy-in is important because the

agency has a critical role to play in advancing plans for the

region. If we can get them to be actively involved, rather 

than taking a hands-off approach, we’ll have greater understanding about our needs and solutions, and then hopefully

increased responsibility for finding solutions to our funding

challenges...We feel good about having been able to do this.”

Skoutelas reports that relations between the two agencies

have improved significantly recently, although transit officials

still hope to obtain greater decisionmaking influence 

over time.

Institutional Arrangements and Strategies

There are many institutional variations on the way LRPs are

prepared. Most commonly, the MPO prepares the plan with

formal and/or informal input from a wide range of participants, including transit agencies. Albany’s MPO, which has

traditionally hosted one of the nation’s most collaborative,

transit-friendly LRP processes, is one example. Special task

forces are created for major plan updates, a strategy that transit officials believe has been highly effective.

In other regions like Washington and Pittsburgh (discussed 

previously), transit agencies prepare their part of the plan and

it is incorporated into the larger regional plan. It is important

to note, however, that transit’s component of the plan

includes a regional needs assessment, as does the broader

MPO plan.

Charlotte’s situation is unique. Transit is a department of the

City of Charlotte yet they have their own policy board. In

addition, the Mecklenburg-Union MPO is city-dominated

(with the city holding 9 of 13 seats on the policy board).

Charlotte Area Transit System GM Ron Tober reports

strong satisfaction with his group’s involvement in the LRP.

Seattle, Washington
TRANSIT AT THE TABLE: A GUIDE TO PARTICIPATION IN METROPOLITAN DECISIONMAKING

36

Maley observes, “Certain efficiencies

have been realized with DART working on their TSP at the same time

the region is working on its MTP.

For example, the MTP includes

chapters devoted to each mode,

including rail/transit. DART official

Trip Brizell (Senior Manager, Capital

Programming), also reports satisfaction with the metropolitan transportation planning process. “It’s

good to have another view of our

projects, which are often 

iterative,” he notes. 

In addition to the cooperative plan efforts, the MPO sets out work

program areas that are responsive to the needs of the transit authorities. This is a product of MPO representation that includes voting

rights for the region’s transportation partners, including the transportation authorities. 

The Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area has long been acclaimed for

strong technical integration in all planning aspects. For example, the

MPO has a widely acknowledged travel forecasting model DART is

able to use to analyze alternatives during all phases of project planning. 

Another practice of note is that DART no longer focuses their plan on

just their member cities. While they are sensitive to the cities that fund

them, they now also plan for areas outside DART’s official service areas. 

II.2 Be a Strategic Participant in All

Corridor Studies

As a transit service provider, your agency likely has some, if

not considerable, experience with corridor planning efforts.

Corridor planning is an essential step in the identification

and development of transportation projects and improvements of all kinds. An MPO’s long range plan frequently

identifies desired major studies, or, more typically corridor

studies are initiated on an as-needed basis by a modal agency.

Under ISTEA and TEA-21, corridor studies consider all reasonable transportation modes, and when regional officials

look for a study leader, transit operators should get involved.

Depending on the characteristics of the corridor, the study

leader might be a transit operator, a state DOT, local public

Trip Brizell

Senior Manager,

Capital Programming 

Dallas Area Rapid Transit

The Dallas region has especially effective institutional

arrangements and other noteworthy strategies for implementing their LRP process.

Dallas MPO Has Full Transit Plan Integration Plus Other

Exemplary Planning Features

In sharp contrast to many of the other larger metropolitan areas

investigated, planning and decisionmaking in the Dallas-Fort Worth

metropolitan area are accomplished

on a region-wide basis. The North

Central Texas Council of Governments’

Barbara Maley, AICP (Principal

Transportation Planner) observes,

“Our Director (Michael Morris, P.E.)

believes in the adage ‘thinking globally, planning regionally, and acting

locally.’” In addition, as a region,

we are fortunate that our policy

officials rarely, if ever, remark, ‘My

constituents want something different than the regional need.’”

This regional philosophy is strongly

reflected in the excellent planning

integration between the MPO and

the three transportation authorities:

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART),

the Fort Worth Transportation

Authority (the T), and the Denton

County Transportation Authority

(DCTA). For example, DART and the

MPO are preparing their transit 

system plan (TSP) and metropolitan

transportation plan (MTP) in tandem, with the MPO actually housing,

on occasion, a DART employee. It is

through cooperation and coordination that the similarities between

the two plans far outweigh the differences. The coordination extends

to the use of the same financial assumptions and target year (2030).

Having similar target years can be uncommon as the transit industry

usually does not use such a long time frame. This cooperation and

coordination have proven especially beneficial for preparing environmental documents, which have to be consistent with the adopted MTP.

It is also helpful to the public to see a consistent timing message. 

Mike Morris

Director 

North Central Texas 

Council of Governments

Barbara Maley

Principal Transportation Planner

North Central Texas Council

of Governments
works department, the MPO, or in some cases, a special

interagency group or collaborative established just for this

particular planning effort. The study itself may be an

Alternatives Analysis, a highway or multimodal corridor

study, or another successor to the ISTEA-era Major

Investment Study. Any of these options can include preparation of key environmental documents necessary for project

implementation—an Environmental Assessment or draft/final

Environmental Impact Statement.

Transit operators consulted in this study report a range of

experiences with corridor planning. Some transit agencies get

involved in corridor studies from the very beginning,

and others report needing to elbow their way to the table to

ensure that transit improvements are considered among 

the alternatives.

The most proactive transit agencies consulted for this study

consistently got involved in regional corridor studies,

even when the major improvements were likely to be roadoriented or when the study was led by a state DOT or local

public works department.The stories of these operators show

that, regardless of what a corridor looks like today, transit may

play any number of roles in the corridor in the future, and

transit operators can ensure that such prospects are examined

by being involved in corridor studies. If you currently or

prospectively operate in the study corridor, the planning

process will provide opportunities for you to ensure that identified improvements yield benefits to your customers.

Surveying the Scene

In corridor studies, savvy transit agencies anticipate and avert

potential obstacles to future services, making the best of the

situations before them and drawing upon the successes 

of transit operators in other regions. Many of the operators

involved in this study sought participation when 

the study was in preliminary planning stages. The following

strategic questions are culled from their experiences in 

getting involved:

1. How is the corridor perceived by MPO participants?

Do your MPO partners see a role for transit? 

Transit Can Be a Positive Force in Transportation and Land Use Planning

37

Most corridor studies seek to understand the problems in the

corridor, their underlying causes, and the viable options for

addressing them, without pre-determination of modal outcomes. However, when corridor studies are approached from

the perspective of just one mode, the challenge cited by transit operators is to ensure that transit representatives are at the

table, and that transit alternatives are fairly considered among

the viable solutions to mobility problems. Where a corridor

study sponsor has overlooked, discounted, or actively excluded transit participation, the transit operator must tell the

sponsoring agency that it wants to play a part. These represent important, highly visible challenges for you to work on

overcoming. As a participant in the MPO process, you have a

right to request representation. And, as discussed elsewhere in

this report, where FTA or FHWA funds support the study,

you have an even stronger opportunity to appeal to those

funding agencies if your requests for regional cooperation are

denied by your state/local partners.

Shut Out by State DOT

The following dilemma was described by a study participant. The transit operator is eager to participate in corridor studies for a variety of

roadway projects in the region, including widening projects being considered for an interstate and a major arterial. The transit operator

sees opportunities to include transit improvements in these efforts,

perhaps by reserving some additional right-of-way for future transit

use or by constructing a park-n-ride where a new interchage may be

added. “We want to be involved to keep right-of-way available for

projects we’re interested in doing later or for small stuff,” said the

operator. However, most of the studies are conducted by the state

highway department which, according to the operator, “doesn’t see 

the need” for transit’s participation. “They may invite us to the scoping. We sometimes ask to be involved in the technical advisory committee, but are rarely included by the state DOT.... This has happened

two or three times, and we have lost opportunities by not being in on

the front end of planning these things.” This presents a challenge that

strategies identified throughout this report may help address, or, 

better yet, avert. 

2. Has a sponsor for the study been identified? 

Depending on the status of the corridor study, a sponsor may

or may not have already been identified. The transit operators
TRANSIT AT THE TABLE: A GUIDE TO PARTICIPATION IN METROPOLITAN DECISIONMAKING

38

1. Piggybacking on Capital Projects—Where the local

highway department is poised to make roadway

improvements, many transit operators see an opportunity

to include physical enhancements for transit service in

the corridor as well.

• Pittsburgh’s Port Authority participated in the

Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission-led study for the

Monfayette Expressway. “It’s a pure highway project,”

says Skoutelas, “but we’ve located appropriate positions

for park-n-ride facilities in the project, which affects

our system and riders. We ensure that transit’s voice is

heard and that transit receives some benefit from

improvements that are advanced.”

• Charlotte’s Ron Tober says getting involved in highway

studies can be financially smart for transit. “We can get

more bang for our buck by coordinating roadway improvements with transit improvements like bus shelters,

signage, landing pads, and wheelchair landing pads. If

we know about a study or project at an early stage, we

can get our work done at a fraction of the cost of going

it on our own. For example, we still pay for bus shelters

and signs, but we don’t pay [for] installation. As for

sidewalks, landing pads, and turning radii improvements, if we get the design standards or features in the

project, these are no cost items for us.” Cooperation

with local towns to foster such collaboration is also

important. “This kind of stuff is not always happening

through the MPO.” While there have been no recent

roadway corridor studies in Charlotte, Tober says, “if

there were one, we’d be involved up to our eyeballs.”

• Washington’s WMATA sits on the policy board for a

number of highway studies. Says Rick Stevens, “We’re

involved in all of them...by being on the technical

committee or helping to develop transit alternatives

and to evaluate all alternatives. We provide cost information about transit services, and operating plans and

impacts. If the study is looking at road improvements,

we ask, ‘what can they do that will make it easier for

rubber tire transit?’ If they add an HOV lane, we make

sure they connect to the park-n-ride to serve transit.

and MPOs who participated in this study provided examples

of corridor studies conducted in their regions by various

organizations, and identified advantages and disadvantages of

particular sponsorships. It is common for state DOTs, transit

operators, and MPOs to sponsor multimodal corridor studies. There is no recipe for identifying the best sponsor other

than to identify if any would restrict your participation.

3. Among MPO member agencies and other public 

entities, which is the most appropriate study sponsor?

How about your agency? 

In many cases, the corridor in question and the modal

emphasis of the study will suggest a particular organizational

sponsorship. When transit or multimodal improvements are

being studied, it is more likely that the transit operator or/and

the state DOT will lead the effort. Following are comments

by transit operators sharing their experiences with corridor

studies sponsored by different organizations.

When the Highway Department Leads a Corridor Study

“This project is very large, and there are more committees than you can

shake a stick at. We’ve been involved in them all.”

— Catherine Debo, Metro Transit (Madison)

Where do transit operators fit in when a corridor study is led

by the state DOT or when circumstances suggest that the

effort will focus on road-oriented improvements? Many

transit operators said transit could win a range of benefits in

such cases by active engagement in highway corridor studies.

Some operators explained that a corridor serving only private

vehicular traffic today could be a strategic setting for transit

service in the future. In preparation for that, they made sure

that transit alternatives were examined in the corridor study.

Other operators who already provide service in a corridor

being studied said it was critical to make the DOT aware of

transit’s operational considerations in the planning process.

For these reasons—and many more—savvy operators wanted

to be at the table.

Several transit operators were strategic participants in the

highway corridor studies in their regions. Their active

involvement yielded three major types of benefits for transit.
In designs for a park-n-ride, we make sure our buses 

are accommodated.”

• In Madison, a state DOT study was prepared for the

reconstruction of East Washington Avenue, a major

arterial to the city. Says Catherine Debo, “This was

typical of what happens with highway projects in our

area. We always have staff involvement. We have a

Metro staff person who is the liaison on any highway

activity in the area. This project is very large, and there

are more committees than you can shake a stick at.

We’ve been involved in them all.” The project itself

includes many physical elements for transit in the corridor, including bus shelters, benches, signage, bus pull

ins, and possibly ITS components for transit.

Additionally, the state DOT will help pay for the cost

of property acquisition for a Metro park-n-ride facility.

Says Debo, “This is a terrific benefit to get in the

course of a project. It’s a major transit corridor, and

we’ll be able to get buses through and also get the parkn-ride facility that we’ve wanted for a long time.”

2. Strategic Gains for the Long Term—By participating

in road studies, some transit operators have secured other

transit benefits that will materialize over the longer

term and shape the region’s transit service profile.

Tober says that getting involved “gives us the ability to

ensure that the needs of transit service are considered.

When something will spur development, we work for

planning decisions that will result in development that

is more transit supportive than would otherwise occur.”

• Portland’s I-5 is the focus of a Federal Borders and

Corridors Study concerned with I-5’s role as a trade

corridor. A large study task force was established that

included representatives from Oregon, Washington,

and even Vancouver, Canada. Tri-Met GM Fred

Hansen says his job on the task force is “to make sure

alternatives to more highway lanes are represented on

the committee...to make sure transit is at the table.”

The committee has advanced recommendations that

light rail transit be part of transportation solutions in

this crowded corridor.

Transit Can Be a Positive Force in Transportation and Land Use Planning

39

• In Houston, Metro has been a highly active steering

committee member for TxDOT’s study to widen the

Katy Freeway. After a recent proposal was accepted that

would convert the Katy’s central lanes to toll lanes,

Metro has been active to ensure that the reconfigured

project can provide for high-capacity transit at some

point in the future. The current project is defined as

auto-only and calls for structures that, if designed for

autos and trucks only, would not be strong enough to

hold another mode. Metro has been working with

TxDOT to amend the designs and to ensure that elevated structures (overpasses and bridges) are sufficiently strong to accommodate the heaviest demand transportation mode, which would be LRT. They have

designed bridges for LRT loading threshold so that if

the community elects LRT for this corridor in the

future, bridges and overpasses will be able to accommodate it. Shirley DeLibero explains, “We’re involved and

collaborating. We are putting money into the effort to

reinforce all elevated structures in the toll road’s design

and construction to ensure that at a later date, when the

toll road is obsolete or saturated, we can put a rail line

in. This will keep us from tearing it up later. If we were

not at the table early on, we wouldn’t even know about

this opportunity. For Metro, it is easier to spend a little

extra now and to tweak structures for a maximum

future load demand than to rebuild it for high-capacity

transit 10, 15, or 20 years from today.”

Katy, Texas
3. Redefining Problems and Solutions—Sometimes 

transit’s presence at the table can help to redefine a 

corridor problem.

• According to Las Vegas’ Jacob Snow, the state DOT

Northeast Corridor study involved lots of street and

highway infrastructure. However, given constraints on

right-of-way available for road expansion, a realization

came that bus rapid transit (BRT) could also play a role

in the corridor. Moreover, additional potential BRT

corridors were identified, along with a park-n-ride.

Transit staff served on the study’s technical advisory

committee. Says Snow, “We get involved with every

EIS....Transit is always considered a more important

mode now than in the past. There just isn't right-ofway for new freeways; you have to look for alternatives.”

When Transit Takes Charge 

“Transit must know what it wants

and be a catalyst.”

— Paul Skoutelas, Port Authority of

Allegheny County

Initiating and taking the lead

on planning studies can have

clear advantages for a transit

operator, providing the transit

organization an outlet to move

its priorities forward and an

ability to shape the process.

Transit alternatives analysis has

been a key part of established transit planning practice for

many years. The operators interviewed identified the following advantages of transit-led corridor planning efforts.

• Meeting transit’s needs. A transit-led corridor study

can influence the range of options considered and

ensure that transit scenarios are workable and would

have community support. “The fact that we’re the catalyst is important,” says Paul Skoutelas of the Port

Authority of Allegheny County. “Transit must know

what it wants and be a catalyst.”

• Doing it on time. Heading a study also enables your

agency to set the study’s timetable; where timing is

important for advancing a set of transit improvements

or a particular project, transit’s management of the

effort can make the most of time-sensitive windows of

opportunity. Says one transit agency representative

“The [transit] operator is able to ensure we get it done

on time and within budget.”

• Showcasing transit’s strengths. Leading a corridor

study can showcase your agency’s strengths. “It’s been

very good for us,” said Director of Planning William 

Fernandez, of Metropolitan Area Rapid Transit

Authority’s lead role in a corrdior feasibility study. “We

have a strong planning department, and they work well

with...other regional planners. [Leading the study]

shows new life and growth...[and helps us] to expand 

our system.”

• Getting broad participation. Leading a corridor study

allows your agency to promote a collaborative process

and to identify a course of action supported by an array

of stakeholders. Charlotte’s transit operator, the

Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS), has led a

number of corridor studies to help develop recommendations and create system plans. While the operator has

driven the process, they have also coordinated closely

with surrounding towns, the planning commission, and

the community.

Skoutelas’ Port Authority has sought the MPO’s active

involvement in its studies.The advantage to a meaningful participation by others, says Skoutelas, is that “we’ll

have greater buy-in and understanding about needs and

TRANSIT AT THE TABLE: A GUIDE TO PARTICIPATION IN METROPOLITAN DECISIONMAKING

40

Paul Skoutelas

CEO 

Port Authority of 

Allegheny County

Sandy, Utah
solutions and a better response to the funding challenge....

We feel good about having been able to do this.”

Participating in Another Agency’s Transit Study 

In regions serviced by multiple transit operators, one operator’s

study is an opportunity for other operators to be involved.

Indeed, by working within another operator’s study, it is possible to find ways for transit to perform better for the whole

region. The Seattle and Houston examples demonstrate this.

• In Seattle, a multiple-operator region, King County’s

Metro-Transit participated heavily in the development

of fellow operator Sound Transit’s Regional Transit

System Plan and a subsequent alternatives analysis.

The Sound Transit plan calls for developing light-rail

transit in King County, which would affect the services

delivered by Metro-Transit. Metro-Transit’s participation

in the Sound Transit study allowed the two agencies to

address operational issues around use of the downtown

Seattle transit tunnel. Metro-Transit runs buses through

the tunnel, and the potential introduction of light rail

to the tunnel presented a whole range of shared operational issues which the two providers needed to

address. The study provided an opportunity to do this.

• In Houston, Metro was an active participant in the

study by the Houston Galveston Area Council

(Houston MPO) of the financial and logistical 

feasibility study of commuter rail in the US 290A 

corridor. While the corridor is beyond Metro’s service

area, Metro is part of the team evaluating the consultant’s work on the study. The advantage to being at the

table is that Houston Metro can help to ensure that any

proposed rail project complements Metro’s existing

and planned transit network.

When the MPO Leads the Study 

The MPO may be the appropriate candidate to lead a 

corridor study, especially when the MPO brings significant

staff and other resources to the study and has a multimodal

perspective. Several transit operators interviewed reported a

preference for MPO-led transit alternatives analyses because

of benefits discussed below.

• Greater Credibility for Transit Projects. A transit-oriented study managed by the MPO may have more 

credibility among regional stakeholders than a study

produced independently by the transit operator. Local

officials, partner agencies, and the public may be more

likely to view the study conclusions as serving the

region’s interest, not just transit’s interest.

• Greater Potential for Transit Consideration in

Highway Corridor Studies. The MPO can bring a

broader regional and multimodal perspective to a highway-oriented corridor study. As with MPO-led transit

studies, this may bring greater credibility for the study

results overall. When an operator pushes for transit

improvements in a highway corridor study, the MPO

can lend credibility to the transit proposals. Said one

operator,“The study looks like a regional study with the

MPO leading it.....The MPO is very objective; they’re

not cooking the numbers in our favor.”

• Tackling Controversial Issues. Where regional stakeholders are likely to assume opposing positions on corridor issues, the MPO can provide a neutral lead. Capital

District Transportation Authority (CDTA) Planning

Manager Kristina Younger (in

Albany where BRT and light rail

advocates were contending)

explains, “The MPO took the

lead on making BRT the preferred alternative,...taking it to

the next step of detailed scoping,

and getting local municipalities

to buy in.” The MPO “is moving the region toward consensus

on the preferred alternative and

this has shielded us from the 

initial controversy over light rail

versus BRT.”

Another example comes from the San Francisco Bay

Area. The US Route 101 corridor has experienced significant residential and commercial development, and 

Transit Can Be a Positive Force in Transportation and Land Use Planning

Kristina Younger

Planning Manager

Capital District 

Transportation Authority

41
rapid population growth in recent decades. The 

congested corridor connects Marin, Sonoma, and San

Francisco Counties, and is

an important regional

transportation link. Earlier

planning studies had proposed the addition of

HOV lanes, but scarce

funding prevented their

construction. Local counties have also proposed rail

transit in the corridor.

Although potentially controversial, the region’s

MPO began discussing

the possible use of tolls to

help finance a high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane in the corridor. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s

(MTC) Deputy Director of Policy Therese McMillan

reflects, “It’s easier for MTC to look at that option. HOT

lanes are potentially controversial. In such cases, we can

give cover to a wide range of issues that cause controversy

at the local level.”

• Access to MPO Funding. Some operators also reported

that their MPO was an important source of funding

for transit studies.Transit operators who could not provide their own funding for a study have successfully

approached the MPO to lead the effort. In cases where

planning in a regionally important corridor might be

neglected due to scarce funds, MPO sponsorship can

provide a way to get important studies off the ground.

• The MPO Straddles Turfism. In the San Francisco

Bay Area, the MPO leads corridor studies when a

potential project has a high profile in the legislative

arena or when a corridor spans multiple counties, serving an important regional function. An MPO-led

study can eliminate the need for localities to have joint

agreements when advancing such a study, and can also

neutralize turf issues when it is unclear who should be

in charge at the local level.

TRANSIT AT THE TABLE: A GUIDE TO PARTICIPATION IN METROPOLITAN DECISIONMAKING

42

Therese McMillan

Deputy Director of Policy 

Metropolitan 

Transportation Commission

• Expanded Staff Resources. Another advantage to an

MPO-led study is the staff resources the MPO can

provide. The relative staff sizes of transit operators and

MPOs vary from place to place, but where an MPO has

a well-sized and capable staff, the MPO may be a logical

choice to lead a corridor effort. Ron Barnes (formerly

with COTA) reported having a longstanding agreement

with the MPO to assist with long range planning

efforts: “Our staff was not big enough to take the lead

and do all the work, so we used the MPO staff. They

had a good technical staff, especially for modeling. We

had a healthy working relationship with the MPO through

the years, and their work products have been top quality.”

On the flip side, several transit operators expressed 

frustration with the level of transit planning tools and

capabilities at the MPO. Said one operator, “They

don’t have staff and are not in the business of hiring

consultants. Everything there takes forever to get

done.” Another remarked, “The MPO doesn’t make 

it a high priority to do transit planning. The MPO

doesn’t do transit planning.”

Potential advantages to an MPO-led corridor study are evident

in the example of Salt Lake City’s Utah Transit Authority.

In Salt Lake City, MPO is the Way to Go

For many years, the Wasatch Front Regional Council (Salt Lake City

MPO) led alternatives analyses with the support of Utah Transit

Authority, the transit agency. Says former Director of the Wasatch Front

Regional Council, Will Jefferies, “Their staff realized the transit system

impacts communities it goes through. [A] study done by the MPO took

UTA out of an adversarial role. The Regional Council did EIS for all

transit projects while I was there...Having the MPO do an EIS is a

fantastic advantage for a transit agency...you have the buy-in of the

community and other affected agencies. We don’t do analyses without

full cooperation of all the modes. We get stakeholders involved too.

We would not have formal public hearings—we’d have open houses

where anyone could be involved in equal level. We tried to get the

point of view of the general community and not of special interest

groups alone. The MPO doing it over transit is a big advantage...For

many years across the country, we stood alone in that practice.” 
agencies—we work side-by-side with the agencies as opposed

to handing things off in a series. Design and implementation

goes much more smoothly.”

Stauder says the TCIG’s collaborative approach to major

transportation studies keeps the discussion of the financial

viability of a project in front of the region, so the region can

make decisions about highways and transit in an atmosphere

where all the information is on the table. This has been very

important. The group also helps to build a broader consensus for transit projects that are developed. “If there were less

public discussion and community engagement, the system

that would be operated would not be as acceptable to the

community as it is under this process.”

II.3 Promote Land Use Integration

“You can’t separate transportation and land use. The whole issue of

[traffic] congestion is about how we accommodate future growth.”

— Sam Williams, President, Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce

Communities across the country are turning to new land use

policies and programs as a means to reduce worsening traffic

congestion and improve quality of life. According to the

Growth Management Alliance, almost half the states and a

growing number of local governments (particularly those representing urban central cities) are pursuing or adopting “smart

growth strategies.”

These evolving land use measures are highly supportive of

transit, and FTA has sponsored a number of programs 

and policies to strengthen local land use/transportation 

relationships including their previous “Livable Communities

Initiative,” the ongoing Joint Development program, and 

the promotion of TOD. A Congressional mandate that land

use be a major New Start criterion for transit sponsors 

seeking Federal major capital investment funds, combined

with numerous local success stories, has led to dramatically

heightened interest in improved land use integration. Transit

operators are particularly enthusiastic about developing the

land around transit stations in ways that increase ridership,

revitalize communities, and create an income stream.

Transit Can Be a Positive Force in Transportation and Land Use Planning

43

Hybrid Approaches to Studies

In some regions, responsibility for a major corridor may be

shared among two or more agencies. Where transit is closely

involved, it can benefit.

• Dallas Area Rapid Transit is working with the MPO

on a number of rail corridors outside of the DART service area. These corridor planning efforts have not

advanced to the alternatives analysis stage yet, but

DART is collaborating with the MPO at the systems

planning level with an eye toward DART later leading

the effort. “Because we are so involved with the MPO

on an overall basis, we have established a routine agreement for how studies are generated and how they go

through the planning process and feed the RTP. We

have established procedures for moving the studies

along,” says DART Senior Manager of Capital

Programming. “Nothing falls through the cracks. We

always know what each agency is doing, and we can

anticipate what our role will be. We know that in certain corridors, because it comes from our process, that

we’ll be the implementing agency.”

• St. Louis’ Transportation Corridor Investment Group

(TCIG) has received much attention for its collaborative approach to corridor efforts. The TCIG leads all

major investment studies and alternatives analyses in

the region. It is composed of two state DOT staff; two

St. Louis Metro staff, the transit provider; and 

two MPO staff. The group is managed by an MPO

employee, and they are housed within the MPO’s

offices. The TCIG originated in a 1996 MOU.

“All agreed that it was essential that the staffs sit

together and work together,” says former St. Louis

Metro official Susan Stauder.

East-West Gateway Council of Governments (St. Louis

MPO) Director Les Sterman says the TCIG is a “successful

collaboration” that works effectively to smooth the planning

and design stages of major projects. BSDA (the transit

agency) participates when we plan a major highway project.

There are good staff relationships ...the TCIG has helped to

develop relationships between the MPO and implementing
TRANSIT AT THE TABLE: A GUIDE TO PARTICIPATION IN METROPOLITAN DECISIONMAKING

44

A major obvious barrier to greater transit operator participation in land use decisions is that they have no direct control

over land use—this is the purview of local governments.

However, as many of you have demonstrated, there is still

much you can do, with the MPO as an important venue and

source of funding for this planning and coordination. Several

strategies and programs uncovered in this study are discussed

below.Those of you who wish for more information can consult recent publications sponsored by FTA, the Transportation Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), and others,

as well as attend conferences such as APTA, Rail~Volution,

and others sponsored by smart-growth organizations.

• Albany has traditionally had limited local land use

planning, with minimal requirements for municipal

master plans and consistent zoning. Seeing this as an

opportunity, the Capital District Transportation

Commission (Albany MPO)

under John Poorman’s leadership, proposed using the UPWP

FHWA/FTA funds to encourage and nurture an improved

local-level planning process,

including the development of

master plans, zoning processes,

and corridor and special area

studies. Although a local match

is required, this is still a significant source of local planning

funds. Kristina Younger, planning manager for the transit

agency (CDTA), says her agency helped approve 

the program through their seat on the MPO

Administration and Finance Committee, and thinks

it’s having a major impact.

“This ‘Linkage Program’ has spurred local planning...CDTA can make

sure transit planning and pedestrian issues are addressed, whereas

we didn’t have a good forum for this before.”

—Kristina Younger, CDTA 

• The success of Charlotte, North Carolina’s transit referendum approving a half-cent sales tax for transit is

partly attributed to their development of a land use

vision plan in support of

their proposed transit

plan with the CharlotteMecklenburg Planning

Commission. The MPO’s

2025 Transit Land Use

Plan supports implementation of their “centers and corridors” vision

plan, which proposed to

focus office and residential development around

transit stations, established five rail or BRT corridors, and increased feeder,

local, and express buses to station areas and for surrounding towns. Former Transit Planning Manager Tim

Gibbs explains why the land use/transit linkage was so

compelling to the voters: “In communities that have

been consistently expanding through suburban sprawl,

the costs associated continue to escalate and reach a

point that you can’t afford it—water, sewer, etc.”

Because CATS is a department of the City of Charlotte,

there is a strong commitment to coordinating land use

with transit. General Manager Ron Tober believes

that being a peer with the other department heads represents a great opportunity to obtain needed coordination with other departments like planning and utilities.

He says, “My goal is to get TOD institutionalized as a

way we do business.”

Local officials are now trying to win acceptance from the

development community, working with the Urban Land

Institute and local businesses to conduct a series of forums

to show the development community that, as one official

said,“not everyone wants a 1/4-acre lot on a cul-de-sac.”

• Columbus,Ohio has several land use initiatives involving

transit and local governments acting through the MPO,

the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission.

John Poorman

Staff Director

Capital District 

Transportation Commission

Tim Gibbs

Former Transit Planning Manager

Charlotte Area Transit System
Their Linden Project is a new bus transfer station

developed jointly with a child-care facility, children’s

clinic, and bank, with a nearby police station, city housing

authority, office development, and other community

amenities. Completed about three years ago, it sparked

significant revitalization in the Linden area of the City.

More recently, the MPO, in close coordination with

the City and COTA, sponsored a two-pronged TOD

study. The first part, funded by the City, was an education booklet designed as a tool to assist COTA in

bringing TOD to the community. The second,

co-funded by both the City and COTA, was the development of sample TOD site plans. These included

model plans for a developing suburb, a developed 

suburb, and an urban neighborhood.

• In Denver, the transit agency, Regional Transportation

District (RTD), has embarked on a major joint development project—the redevelopment of the City’s 

historic Union Station. Paid for by the City, RTD, and

$20 million in CMAQ funds, this is a collaborative

effort involving the state, city, MPO, and, of course,

RTD. The district wants to convert the station into a

transit center for the metropolitan area serving riders of

light rail, commuter rail,

regional buses, and bicycles. Adjacent development will include office,

residential, and retail.

“A great project...we’re all working

together to make it a hub for the

entire state.” 

— Guillermo Vidal, former Director

Denver Regional COG

Transit Can Be a Positive Force in Transportation and Land Use Planning

45

Guillermo Vidal

Former Director 

Denver Regional Council 

of Governments

Bay Area Lavishes “Tender Loving Care” On Livable

Communities

A particularly creative use of enhancement and CMAQ funds to encourage better land use development was developed by the Bay Area’s

MPO—Metropolitan Transportation Commission. They distributed half

the region’s enhancement money to the County Management Agencies

and added CMAQ and STP money to the remaining enhancement funds

to establish a new “Transportation for Livable Communities Program”

(TLC). Launched in 1998, $54 million was distributed through this program over the six-year life of TEA-21.

Developed in collaboration with the Citizen’s Advisory Council, TLC has

unique program features - many designed to encourage grass-roots

collaboration and participation. The program’s basic premise is that

small-scale transportation investments like streetscape improvements,

transit-oriented developments, and related strategies can sometimes

make a big difference in a community’s vitality and identity. It encourages redevelopment that adds housing and economic vitality to older

business and community centers. TLC offers three kinds of assistance:

planning grants, capital grants, and housing incentives. All proposals

must be collaboratively developed; they can’t come from just one

prospective sponsor. Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), for example, 

is teaming with the City of Richmond for a transit village.

BART officials helped develop TLC’s criteria and their Michael Tanner

(Manager of Capital Development and Grants) estimates that roughly

one of every three TLC dollars benefits them, although not always

directly. Because the program’s main thrust is higher development

around transit and transit-friendly development generally, all grants to

communities adjacent to their stations will help increase BART ridership. One example is the BART station at 16th and Mission Streets,

where San Francisco received funding to rehabilitate the adjacent

plaza and make a more pleasant environment for pedestrians. Another

is the Bay Fair station in San Leandro, where a TLC grant created

access improvements concerning safe pedestrian passage from BART

to an adjacent mall. According to Tanner, “This program benefits our

patrons and us, but it is sponsored by the County of Alameda.”

For more information on the TLC program, contact TLC Project

Manager Ashley Nguyen at (510) 464-7809 or anguyen@mtc.ca.gov.
MTA

New York City, New York
“It’s a barrier not to have our own taxing authority, like asking Mom

and Dad for money—they set the rules and you get an allowance 

if you behave.”

— Susan Stauder, former Deputy Executive Director for Policy and Economic

Development, St. Louis Metro

Throughout the interviews, the

importance to transit operators

of a strong independent source

of funding was stated repeatedly.

Those of you without this

advantage are often limited in

your ability to make significant

improvements to transit service

in your regions. Observations 

of Metroplan (Little Rock

MPO) Director Jim McKenzie

are typical of the laments

repeatedly expressed. “We so

desperately need a dedicated

funding source for transit. This has been a consistent recommendation of the MPO and of the Feds in certification

reviews. It’s been on the ballot twice but defeated both times.

CATA (the local transit agency) has to go begging every single year from the general fund from its member cities. If one

of them gets into financial problems, transit funding is often

the first thing to cut. It’s difficult to do much long range planning when the transit director has to worry about cutting

routes and services frequency on an annual basis.”

While you may seldom feel you have sufficient funding 

to provide the types of transit service truly needed in your

regions, some of you do enjoy the benefits of significant 

dedicated funding. In agencies where there are sources of

dedicated and other available funding, like New York,

Denver, the Bay Area, Dallas, Salt Lake City, Charlotte,

Portland, and Houston, there appears to be some correlation

with the relative strength the transit operator has at the MPO

table. This means that the better-off agencies probably have

more opportunities to further improve their financial position

than those with more limited resources—an unfortunate

“chicken-and-egg” situation.

Clearly, obtaining new and increasing existing funding

sources is a priority for virtually all transit operators. Equally

apparent, however, is that this formidable undertaking is

often fraught with obstacles at all levels of government.

While the Federal government has provided significant flexibility and funding opportunities for transit, especially since

ISTEA, the operators who participated in this study feel that

increasing transit ridership and worsening congestion warrant

even greater Federal transit support. Many of you feel the

largest state barriers revolve around limitations on use of the

state gasoline tax. The failure of most states to raise or index

this tax has created severe highway funding shortages, and gas

tax restrictions in many states prohibit its use for transit.

Additional problems relate to insufficient funds for transit as

the result of sub-allocation funding decisions by states related

to metropolitan areas and localities.

Still more obstacles exist at the metropolitan level, where, as

described in Chapter I, local politics and modal preferences

may undermine transit revenue enhancement initiatives that

are perceived as threatening to road funding. Also, in this 

era of national fiscal austerity, new tax initiatives to support

transit face increasing skepticism, particularly in communities

without a strong transit tradition. Multi-state regions face

even greater difficulties.

Given the significance of their effect on resource allocation,

these impediments should be regarded as rallying points –

important focal points for your involvement in MPO

processes. In fact, by so doing, many of you have accomplished a great deal for transit service in your region. A growing national awareness of transit’s role in managing 

metropolitan congestion, plus your own resourcefulness 

and perseverance, has contributed to transit’s progress. The

examples in this chapter discuss how especially proactive

transit operators have overcome some of the barriers, with the

MPO as the location of the negotiating table.

III Financial Planning Counts

47

Susan Sauder

Former Deputy 

Executive Director

St. Louis Metro
III.1 Help Determine the Cooperative 

Revenue Forecast 

Estimating future available revenues to support transportation programs over the planning period may seem like just

another technical task the MPO must carry out to comply

with Federal regulations. However, this forecast may significantly influence future levels of Federal aid received by your

metropolitan area, and the scope of the systems and services

you are allowed to plan.Thus, it is far too important to be left

to a purely technical process – without your involvement.

Estimating Revenues

The cooperative revenue forecast is at the core of the MPO’s

financial planning process. Although the MPO is responsible

for producing the forecast, it needs to get much of the information from others, including FTA and FHWA, the state

DOT, local transit operators, and local governments.

The forecast is called “cooperative” because of the various

sources of information it is based on, and because it requires

a consensus among these revenue-generating units.

In addition, the forecast should reflect policy choices as 

much as statistical projections. All the reasonable options

should be examined before settling on the one that all 

the responsible parties in the metropolitan area pledge to

implement together. This requires financial planning to be

treated at least as seriously and thoughtfully as any other type 

of planning, and perhaps more. The perceived availability 

of future year resources may effectively open or shut the 

door on implementing your priority projects. Also, early

awareness of future resource limitations may spawn 

discussion of possible flexible funding, innovation finance,

and other resource-generating opportunities.

Revenue forecasts are important because they establish the

“fiscal constraint” within which Federally-assisted long range

plans and short range transportation improvement programs

must be constructed. Planned expenditures must not exceed

the “reasonably anticipated” funding. What is reasonable, of

course, is to be determined in the estimating process. Transit

representatives must be involved to make sure that reasonably

anticipated transit revenues are as fully reflected in the 

estimates as the highway revenues, so that long range and

short range transit planning is not put at a disadvantage. Utah

Transit Authority (UTA) John Inglish, commented, “If you

constrain [the vision for transit] to what you have in the bank,

you might as well pack up and go home.” He went on to

explain, “If you don’t envision an aggressive program in the

long range plan, you won’t know what to ask for and when. It

should not be outrageous, rather it should be what you think

you may be able to do.”

Applying Fiscal Constraint

The fiscal constraint concept has been widely applauded for

making plans and implementation programs more realistic;

they are no longer just wish lists that include many projects

that will never be realized. Now, they describe transportation

systems and specific projects that the region can expect to be

built and operated as proposed. Following this approach, the

MPO and its partners prioritize plans and projects to fit

within the amount of available funding estimated by the

“cooperative revenue forecast.”

To some, the downside of this Federal requirement is that

systems and proposals that cannot be financed cannot be

included in adopted plans and implementation proposals.

However, your region has the choice of simply “estimating”

future revenues on the basis of past trends, or “forecasting”

them in concert with effecting policy decisions to bring about

a fiscal future more supportive of your programs. TEA-21

encourages highly participatory “vision planning” as the first

step in the planning process. It may look forward 40, even 50

years to envision future development patterns and their

implications for highway and transit improvements. In Utah,

transit expansion for Salt Lake City and the Governor’s

“Envision Utah” visioning process went hand-in-hand.

Long range visioning also provided the foundation for 

transportation planning in the San Francisco Bay Area, in

metropolitan Washington, and in other places. Inglish sums

it up, “First ask, what do we need? Then, how to pay for it?

We can work this way.”

TRANSIT AT THE TABLE: A GUIDE TO PARTICIPATION IN METROPOLITAN DECISIONMAKING

48
In either case, reliable and timely financial data play a key role

in helping transportation planners and decisionmakers

understand how much revenue may be available under different policy scenarios that would raise or lower future revenues.

As noted in Section I.6, Federal certification reviews remind

everyone that these estimates must now cover operating and

maintenance costs for the entire system in addition to capital

costs of proposed new projects.

MPO revenue forecasts directly affect transit operators, and

must be based solidly on reliable state and Federal-aid forecasts. Some states conduct cooperative revenue forecasting

processes that involve MPOs in timely sharing of financial

information to provide clear foundations for MPO forecasts.

Future allocations of state and Federal funding among MPOs

and other parts of the state are key components of this cooperative process. But other states do not do this.

Illustrative Experiences 

To illustrate the issue, the Association of Metropolitan

Planning Organizations (AMPO) cites Arizona.The 1998 certification review of the Maricopa Association of Government

(Phoenix MPO) made a formal finding that cooperative revenue forecasting was deficient, and required that it change.

As a result, Arizona developed a “noteworthy practice” using

a statewide Revenue Allocation Advisory Committee, with

roles for the director of one of the state’s major transit agencies, as well as officials from MPOs and the state DOT. This

arrangement was designed to afford MPOs a fairer share of

available state funds. The AMPO Noteworthy Practices

report also cites other states that have such processes.

Transit operators who participated in this study told us about

a range of cooperative forecasting practices. In one instance,

transit fare-box revenues were not being included in the

cooperative revenue estimate, and in other instances, timely

information on the availability of Federal-aid funds being

funneled through the state DOT was not forthcoming. In

addition, many officials reported that the state DOTs were

not sub-allocating STP and CMAQ funds to metropolitan

areas in predictable ways. Without timely information on the

future availability of such funds, the MPO cannot make 

realistic estimates of future revenues, as required by Federal

law. Similar deficiencies were noted in various MPO certification reviews (see Section I.6).

Transit operators also reported a range of experience with

helping to develop cooperative revenue forecasts. Some just

let the MPO do it alone. Others provide their own transit

revenue forecasts to the MPO, which then automatically

incorporates them. A few transit operators were unhappy

with the limited amount of information and involvement

they had in the supposedly “cooperative” processes.

Nevertheless, several of you were more deeply involved.

• In Albany, the cooperative revenue forecast is an 

active topic of discussion at the Capital District

Transportation Commission (Albany MPO) committee

level. The discussion involves the transit authority, the

MPO, state DOT’s regional office, and focuses on estimating a reasonable multi-year budget of funding by

fund source for the MPO area. Without a formal

method at the state level for cooperatively establishing

budgets in each MPO area, the MPO participants in

Albany fashion estimates around their assumptions of a

fair share of various fund sources. The New York State

DOT headquarters does provide resource allocation

estimates to their regional offices, but these are not

identical geographic areas to MPO areas; additionally

the state DOT headquarters may significantly modify

the allocations to regional offices after the MPO

assumptions have been made. As a result, total aid, aid

from specific programs, and potentials for funding flexibility are all discussed, but not fully resolved during the 

planning process.

Financial Planning Counts

49

Tacoma, Washington
For this reason, the current resource estimation process

has plenty of room for improvement, according to

MPO Staff Director John Poorman. The MPO is not

given enough reliable information in a timely fashion

to cooperatively develop a forecast on which it can rely.

The time frame of the MPO’s TIP development

process is not well accommodated by the resource

information from the state DOT. “We saw their numbers this year for the first time only after the 60-day

public review period on our draft TIP had ended...

It’s a disconnect that doesn’t acknowledge the MPO’s

needs to carry out a meaningful TIP process.” As a

result, “We had programmed more than they think we

should have and were being held accountable.” He

notes that after discussion, headquarters negotiated

new resource estimates that avoided a major re-programming effort by the MPO. He expressed hopes

that a truly cooperative estimation process can be

established up front to avoid such last-minute conflicts

in the future. “We’re not that far from having a 

commendable practice in New York, because the state

DOT headquarters does sub-allocate to regions in an

objective, defensible manner. What’s missing is simply

an explicit, timely negotiation with the MPO to 

establish workable budgets for TIP development.”

• In New York City, the transit coordination agency,

Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA),

considers the cooperative revenue forecast to be a 

policy mechanism, not simply an accounting tool.

Although the state DOT resists making commitments

to transit until the last minute, the transit agency pushes

for better forecasting data with help from the MPO.

Although they all believe in fiscal constraint, the transit

agency feels it needs more flexibility than it gets,

and greater ability to modestly over-program. This

appears to be more competitive than a cooperative

forecasting process.

• In Santa Clara County, California, the transit agency is

a major source of tax revenue itself, and is centrally

involved with the state and the MPO in developing the

cooperative forecast.They like the fiscal constraint policy,

because it supports prudent management and provides

clear communication to elected officials about what is

possible and what is not. Thus, if the elected officials

want more transit than they can afford with current

revenues, they know they need to develop a plan for

additional revenue. And, that’s exactly what they did in

1999-2000. The new plan went to referendum and

won handily.

• In Salt Lake City, Wasatch Front Regional Council

(Salt Lake City MPO) is very precise about fiscally

constraining the TIP, revising it when necessary to

keep it in balance. But the MPO treats the long range

plan somewhat less precisely. “Nobody can guess what

might be available in 20-30 years,” says UTA GM John

Inglish. “If you don’t envision an aggressive long range

program,” he continues, “you won’t know what to ask

for and when. Staying within the bounds of what

seems to be practical to accomplish,” he suggests, “it

seems reasonable to speculate on some future funding

source to accomplish it. If you constrain it to what 

you have in the bank, you might as well pack up and 

go home.”

• Seattle Metro Transit takes a similar view.They believe

fiscal constraint is essential, but they also need to know

enough about what they plan to do to make the case 

for additional resources. Thus, Metro’s Eric Gleason

concludes that his agency “needs both constrained and

unconstrained plans.”

TRANSIT AT THE TABLE: A GUIDE TO PARTICIPATION IN METROPOLITAN DECISIONMAKING

50

Salt Lake City, Utah
Fund Raising Positions

Of course transit agencies are by no means all equal in their

ability to acquire additional funding. The ability to obtain

additional funding for transit follows in Section III.2.

III.2 Make the Most of Federal Flexible 

Funding Opportunities

“Baby Steps” Toward Flexible Funding 

Since 1991, states and metropolitan areas have been able to

transfer highway dollars to transit under the flexible funding

provisions of ISTEA and TEA-21. A report by the

Brookings Institution, Flexible Funding for Transit: Who Gets

It?, identifies the potential for much greater use of 

that provision than current practice. During the seven-year

period from FY 1992 to FY 1999, only $4 billion of the 

$33.8 billion potentially available was actually transferred

from highway programs to transit – about 12.5 percent. As

transit needs continue to escalate, one wonders why the

amounts transferred are so small relative to what is potentially

available. Why do some very powerful transit agencies accept

caps on the amounts that can be transferred? Why do some

of the less powerful get no flexed funding at all? Why are

CMAQ and STP the only programs that usually get put on

the table?

Four reasons were cited most often in the in-depth interviews:

The first is insufficient funding for highway improvements.

Without enough money to meet basic highway needs, the

prospects for transit interests to successfully compete for

highway dollars obviously become more challenging.

Portland’s Tri-Met GM Fred Hansen notes that: “We do

make substantial use of flexible funding, especially CMAQ

and STP, but not as much as I would like. That’s because the

state has not raised the gas tax since 1991—not even adjusted it for inflation.Thus, there is great pressure from both road

and transit operators for flex funds.”

The second barrier, discussed in Chapter I, is that the voting

membership of many MPO boards and committees have 

a majority of highway-oriented interests. Former Seattle

Metro GM Rick Walsh explains his situation: “Four counties are in our MPO and even here in the Seattle Region, they

all want roads. Certain dollar amounts are left over but there

are a number of other transit operators at the table...I don’t

know how to break the barrier.” MPOs of smaller geographic

size seem better off. One Tampa transit official speculated on

the impact of a local consolidation proposal. “We get quite a

bit of enhancement, STP, and CMAQ funds. However, our

metropolitan area has several single-county MPOs and there

is both state and Federal pressure to consolidate them into

one. If that happens, I’ll have much less influence in the

MPO and will probably lose money. Regional highways will

probably take money away from my more local transit projects.”

Third, in a surprisingly large number of regions, there is no

systematic process with objective prioritization criteria for

determining which projects will receive funding of any types,

including flex funds. Instead, the process is often highly political, with contenders making presentations and lobbying for

votes. One participant in such a process notes,“Everyone likes

the status quo to a certain extent. The problem is that the

other participants don’t want any process—process means

more work and uncertainty as to how much money they

have.” Las Vegas transit GM Jacob Snow feels that “Even

though a more formal process might mean that transit could

lose out (because we just don’t know), I am still in favor of

a more objective process.” Most of you in regions that 

have objective technical processes report that these greatly

benefit transit.

Finally, the desirability of greater

sub-allocation was mentioned by

several transit officials. Claims

Walsh,“more sub-allocation would

certainly help—we do quite well

with what’s sub-allocated now.

My boss, County Executive Ron

Simms, is pushing for more dollars to be sub-allocated to the

MPOs, bypassing the state.

Under this scenario, the MPO

would become more significant. ”

Financial Planning Counts

51

Rick Walsh

Former General Manager

Seattle Metro
Other barriers to flex funding, in no particular order, include:

• project cost overruns that necessitate the programming

of additional program funds, thereby reducing any

amount that might otherwise have been flexed;

• the perception that transit should get flex money only

if the highway sponsors cannot spend all the dollars in

the various programs;

• the sense in some places that the SDOT uniformly

restricts flex funding;

• limited availability of resources for non-Federal 

match; and 

• a tacit acceptance that agreed-upon caps are all that can

be obtained.

Several of you commented that the administrative approval

process for flexing is cumbersome and time-consuming.

Santa Clara County VTA’s GM, Pete Cipolla, indicates that

they do not do flex funding for this reason. They just use the

sales tax for transit and program all FHWA funds for highways. “This greatly simplifies our paperwork and clearance

process,” Cipolla explains. Finally, in a few places, there are

formal restrictions on the use of flex funds. In Houston, there

was an exemption to Federal law prohibiting the use of

FHWA program funds for transit unless the City passes a

referendum. This obviously made flex funding much more

difficult. In Chicago, the MPO, Chicago Area Transportation

Study made a formal policy decision not to use STP for transit.

“Tampa has problems with flex funds that have to be processed by the

state, and then have to go to FHWA as well. It’s a long complicated

process, very discouraging, and hardly worth the effort. There are not

good processes and feedback loops to keep the money moving along.”

—Sharon Dent, former Executive Director, HART 

To varying degrees, many of these barriers can be addressed

with your active involvement. Some of you may be setting

your sights too low, content with flex funding or other state

support. Recognizing this, Tampa’s Sharon Dent candidly

notes that, “It may be that our expectations are so low that

when you get anything, you’re thrilled—you’re thrilled when

you get a little.” A number of transit operators also reported

fear of “rocking the boat” as a self-imposed constraint because

they do not want to jeopardize local relationships and other

SDOT funding they receive. By raising your goals and

implementing strategies to improve your bargaining position

at the MPO table, you may be able to secure more funding.

The remainder of this section presents a sampling of the

strategies some of you have used to get flex funding.

• The Columbus transit agency, the Central Ohio Transit

Authority (COTA), has a good working relationship

with their MPO, the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning

Commission, and has taken advantage of opportunities

to flex dollars for transit. Mike Greene, former

Director of Planning, reports that he is particularly

pleased with the MPO’s TIP reporting process. It

identifies when highway projects run into problems—

especially environmental difficulties—and grind to a

halt. These projects are not tossed out of the TIP, but

their funding gets pushed back, presenting an opportunity for everyone to compete for the unspent funds

from that fiscal year. COTA has benefited from these

circumstances and has been able to accelerate pipeline

projects, especially their bus replacement program.

Greene says COTA is “happy to be there if MORPC

(the MPO) needs projects to spend the money more

quickly—we can fill that role for them.”

Greene also reports satisfaction with flex funding, in

large part because of COTA’s good working relationship with their MPO (See Section I.3). They have

used flex funds to support:

- bus replacements;

- corridor studies like the Major Investment Study

for the North Corridor LRT Project;

- a study of regional rail freight;

- installation of bike racks on buses; and

- a multimodal downtown terminal.

TRANSIT AT THE TABLE: A GUIDE TO PARTICIPATION IN METROPOLITAN DECISIONMAKING

52
• Albany’s transit agency has benefited from flexible

funding, receiving about $750,000/year in CMAQ

funds to support a large ITS project (described in

Section I.5) and $5 million in STP funding for a large

intermodal facility. The transit agency planning manager Kristina Younger reports, “When there’s CMAQ

on the table, we’re one of the strong competitors.”

• Albany’s transit agency enjoys a receptive forum for 

flexible funding for many reasons, including:

- The flexing barriers in New York State were first

broken by powerful and transit-needy New York

City; after that, other cities clamored for the same

consideration.

- The New York State Department of Transportation

(NYSDOT) emphasized mobility—if the best

way to improve it was to support a transit need,

then that was what was done—funding was flexed

to make it happen.

- Albany is always a special case because of its role

as the state capital and the presence of a major

Amtrak station.

- The transit operator’s planners do their homework,

claiming, “Knowledge is power,” and presenting

strong cases for funding in an objective decisionmaking environment. Proposals are derived from

the MPO’s long range plan, so it is easier to obtain

acceptance for them.

Younger reports that all negotiations for highway/transit flex funding happen in the open forum of the

MPO’s Planning Committee. They take candidate

projects and do consistent fact sheets for each. She says,

“It allows us to make our case—doesn’t always mean

we will get them.”

“I think they (Albany’s transit agency) fare pretty well.” 

— John Poorman, Capital District Transportation Commission Staff Director

• Memphis also reports success in getting CMAQ 

money and over the past few years, has averaged

$750,000-$1 million per year. Projects funded include

small suburban transit centers, bus replacements, fare

revenue equipment, operating assistance for expanded

service, and an AA/DEIS for a rail corridor study from

downtown to the airport. Transit agency Director of

Capital Planning Tom Fox explains that, “When all the

traffic signal projects that are CMAQ-eligible for highway projects are done, there’s more left. There’s a ranking for CMAQ projects and in the last few years, there’s

been more money than projects; so it was easy for us to

get more dollars. This has not been the case for STP,

which also has rankings but is handled separately.

These are the only two flexible finding sources that ever

get out on the table.”

“Politicians let CMAQ be used in less concrete-oriented projects, less

roads. STP funds are seen as funds to be used for concrete and roads,

to get extra lanes.” 

—Carter Gray, Transportation Planning Coordinator, Memphis Urban 

Area MPO 

• The New York MTA receives about $55 million of flex

funding per year, mainly from CMAQ, but also from

STP. However, there seems to be a tacit understanding

that they are “capped” at this amount because the MPO

and DOT feel the need to spread the money around.

“There are many mouths to feed,” says one agency official, “It is sometimes possible for MTA to get more for

special projects.”

Financial Planning Counts

53

Dallas, Texas
Planning and funding in the region is almost totally

decentralized due to the belief that the metropolitan 

area is too big and complex to set priorities in real

“planning school fashion.” European and selected U.S.

metropolitan area experiences like Dallas, (discussed in

Chapter II) suggest that regional decisionmaking can

be possible and when achieved, is usually preferable

from a transit perspective.

Still, within this current funding environment, the

MTA stands out in understanding the levers provided

by the MPO process and vigorously using them all

within the constraints of their institutional setting.

However, a key concern of local officials is the timeliness of the flexible funding approval process. MTA

Grant Management Director Sarah Rios describes the

problem: “To obtain flex funding, I have to go though

the Regional NYSDOT person, then the main DOT

office, then FHWA—there are layers to this process,

it’s arduous. It should take 3-6 months (compared to

the current 6-9 month time frame).”

Several of the study participants reported caps on flexible funding. While these may be negotiated in some

type of political arena, one might consider whether

transit could fare better in a regional prioritization

process, based on objective criteria, as Jacob Snow

advocates. When this is not possible, could a fallback

strategy be for transit operators to enlist more allies,

including citizens and business groups along with

elected officials (Section I.4) to press for better “deals?”

• In Salt Lake City, UTA GM John Inglish reports

receiving a “significant amount” of flexible funding. He

attributes this to the attitude of the public and elected

officials about public transit, which has radically

changed in the five years since LRT was introduced to

the community. Previously when his agency was

attempting to develop LRT, there was enormous negativism about it. Now the line is built and is hugely successful, with ridership exceeding projections. Now

everyone is getting on the bandwagon, according to

English, with a majority of Salt Lake City residents

and officials vigorously supporting transit, making it

easier to get additional flexible funds for transit.

As demonstrated above, many transit agencies have benefited from the CMAQ program as illustrated by Houston

Metro’s $63.4 million under this program since 1996.

However, East-West Gateway Council of Governments (St.

Louis MPO) Executive Director Les Sterman believes that

transit should not continue to depend on CMAQ dollars

because when air quality

improves, as it did in his

region, CMAQ dollars will

decrease or disappear. Transit

operators should make broader

use of other flexible funding

programs like STP and transit

operators need to make a

broader case for transit than

just air quality. “I’m not a big

believer in air quality as a lever

for transportation decisionmaking,” says Sterman, “Air

quality problems are going to

go away at some point, and then what do you do? Go back to

the old way of thinking? ...Air quality has helped us in that

we [have] gotten CMAQ and we have flexed it to transit.

This has been helpful, but it hasn’t changed our relationship

with the transit agency. People have to have transportation

choices, and those are important whether there are air quality

problems or not.” Sterman’s region has moved from nonattainment to maintenance status, but he hopes this won’t mean

that state and local officials will stop investing in transit.

TRANSIT AT THE TABLE: A GUIDE TO PARTICIPATION IN METROPOLITAN DECISIONMAKING

54

Les Sterman

Executive Director

East-West Gateway 

Council of Governments

Salt Lake City, Utah
Financial Planning Counts

55

III.3 Aggressively Explore Additional State

and Local Revenue Sources—Bringing

the Money to the MPO Process

“It’s important for transit operators to try for other funds instead of

going to the same well—look for other opportunities...There is traditional transit and highway money, but there are also more non-traditional Federal, state, and local funding sources which can be of use.Try

to get funds from many sources and get the MPO comfortable with

that. It’s not easy, and has to be worked at.”

— Bill Millar, APTA President

As communities demand more and better public transportation, in the face of state and local reluctance to increase traditional user fees such as state gasoline taxes and fares, reliance

on a broad range of new transit funding sources is growing.

The most significant of these is the local sales tax, secured

most typically through a referendum. The Surface

Transportation Policy Project confirms this finding in their

2002 report Measuring Up: The Trend Toward Voter-Approved

Transportation Funding.

Support for (and from) Public Referenda

To offset the dramatic drop in fuel tax revenues and rising

demand for additional resources for transit proposals, transit

operators increasingly are turning to voter referenda, seeking

permission to generate the new revenues they need. They

most often call for a sales tax increase, but sometimes include

vehicle registration fees, property taxes, taxes on real estate

sales, local income or payroll taxes, or impact fees levied on

new development. In many of these cases, MPO partners

proved to be invaluable allies in building support for the 

proposed referendum. And, once these revenue increases

were enacted, the transit operators enjoyed elevated priority

in the plan/program development work of the MPO that

helped them.

Here are some examples you reported:

Charlotte’s successful November 1998 referendum now generates approximately $50 million per year for transit, enabling

the Region to embark on an ambitious multiple-corridor

fixed guideway expansion program. A focus on land use plus

strong support from business, the public, and the mayors all

contributed to the success. With the support of many of the

elected officials serving on the MPO Board, the referendum

passed on its first try. The referendum also created the

Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC), which included

key members of the MPO. Since transit was a City department, it was well represented on the MPO because a weighted voting structure gave the City and County combined a

majority of the votes. The six towns in Mecklenburg County

also had MPO votes and passed resolutions requesting the

County to put the sales tax referendum on the ballot. A subsequent bond referendum in 2002 provided an additional $20

million for infrastructure on the City’s South Corridor Light

Rail along with $60 million for street and sidewalk improvements. Having other champions is often critical in getting a

referendum for transit passed, and the MPO may be an

important source of those champions.

Los Angeles, California
TRANSIT AT THE TABLE: A GUIDE TO PARTICIPATION IN METROPOLITAN DECISIONMAKING

56

$2.57 billion bond issue. In November 2003, by a narrow

margin, voters resisted a multi-million-dollar campaign to

reject rail expansion and approved Metro’s ambitious $7.5

billion regional transit plan.

Las Vegas’ MPO is the Regional Transportation Commission

(RTC) of Southern Nevada. Under Nevada law, the RTC is

given exclusive authority to operate a public transportation

system within their jurisdictions. As the RTCs are also highlighted under state law as logical choices for designation as

MPOs, the two major RTCs (Washoe County around Reno

and RTC of Southern Nevada around Las Vegas) are both

combined transit providers and MPOs.

The RTC of Southern Nevada has long been active in advocating transit funding and service extension. In 1984, the

RTC advocated a sales tax to create a public bus system to

replace the private system that used RTC buses, but the 

initiative failed. In 1990, a “Question Ten” initiative that

included a sales tax for public transit grouped with street and

highway improvements was passed and the Citizens Area

Transit (CAT) agency was created. In 2002, the RTC followed up on a recommendation from a broad-based community coalition to develop a second “Question Ten” that also

passed, adding another tax on developers, aviation fuel, and

retail sales.This initiative is expected to raise $2.6 billion over

the next 25 years to pay for roads, highways, and an expanded

transit system. The issue’s success is partly attributed to 

close collaboration between the transit agency and the road

interests, under the auspices of the MPO, in developing a

joint funding proposal.

Non-Traditional Local Taxes

“Local funds are gold, state funds are silver, and Federal funds are tin.”

— A local transit official 

As expressed in the above quote, local funds can be a desirable source of additional transit funding. Some operators we

spoke to found local funds flexible and easier to administer

than Federal funds.

Chamber of Commerce Leader Bob Morgan Describes the

History and Strategies of Charlotte’s Financing Initiative

In 1994 the Mayor and Chairman of the County Commission appointed

a “Committee of 100” composed of business and community leaders

as well as local governmental officials to study the future transportation needs of the region. The Committee ultimately endorsed a “Center

and Corridors” plan addressing both land use and transportation, and

floated the concept of a sales tax to finance the proposed transportation improvements, but it was not well received. Two years later, a

powerful all-business Committee of 10 was established to revisit the

funding issues, this time winning state authority to have a referendum, which was successfully held in 1998.

Morgan attributes their victory to Charlotte’s strong corporate leadership, an intellectual underpinning for their “vision plan,” a strategy of

not defining transit too narrowly, complementary ballot initiatives for

sidewalks and roads in addition to transit that were voted on separately but “bundled together” in public communications, and public

support for taking action to solve the region’s mounting congestion.

His advice to other communities contemplating a referendum: “Be

prepared for a long road, but be persistent and don’t give up.” 

Dallas’ transit agency, Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), is

partly funded through a local sales tax created with state permission through a local referendum. The agency received

$325 million in 2002. DART also has bonding authority,

which was approved by voters in a 2000 referendum, which

allowed DART to issue $2.9 billion in bonds. The MPO for

the region, the North Central Texas Council of

Governments, has been very supportive of DART’s efforts to

find new revenue sources. In addition, the MPO created a

Sustainable Development Grants Program that helps support

these efforts using CMAQ funds. These grants support transit-oriented development by providing pedestrian and bike

access to transit.

Houston Metro is supported by a 1-cent sales tax obtained

through a referendum that generates around $400 million

annually. After rejection of an initial bond issue, Metro officials initiated a major program to build community relationships, proactively solicited public input, and employed several service improvement and advertisement strategies. In the

subsequent referendum, voters overwhelmingly approved a
Financial Planning Counts

57

User Fees 

Thirty states have prohibitions in their state constitutions or

statues on using state gasoline taxes for public transportation

services. Even where these taxes can be used for transit, many

states have failed to raise the gas tax for many years or even to

index it to inflation. When states feel they have insufficient

funding to meet their highway needs, they are often reluctant

to entertain proposals to flex Federal money to transit. The

American Road & Transportation Builder’s Association

reports that there have been significant breakthroughs since

1997, 14 state legislatures have voted to raise their gas tax for

transportation investment purposes, a total of 17 times.

However, the Brookings Institution notes that only three

states have raised it enough to keep up with inflation.The gas

tax increases range from 1 cent per gallon (North Dakota) to

6 cents per gallon (Ohio). While most of the new gas tax revenues are slated for highway maintenance/improvements,

some of the money also benefits mass transit. Even if there are

no direct paybacks, it is still often in transit’s interests 

to support gas tax increases because alleviating highway 

funding shortfalls may free more general state money 

for transit investment and/or make it easier to compete 

for flexible funding.

“The role of gas tax restrictions in funding is quite significant. There is

very little state funding for transit. The gas tax is limited to road purposes. That’s a large reason why flexible STP and CMAQ have a heavy

weighting toward transit...In addition, when transit funding has been

approved by the voters, they have a mandate to invest in better transit. What we try to accomplish is multimodal.” 

— Andy Cotugno, Metro (Portland MPO)

Toll revenues are another form of user fee that sometimes

benefits transit. While traditionally viewed as difficult to

administer, tolling is now more feasible and attractive given

current technological innovations like the East Coast’s EZ

Pass. In New York, surplus toll revenues totaling roughly a

billion dollars annually from MTA bridges and tunnels are

used to support the needs of NYC Transit, as well as the

MTA’s commuter railroads. New Jersey Transit has benefited

from this for years and after London’s recent congestion 

pricing success, some U.S. cities are considering new or 

There is a myriad of possible local funding sources. General

funds, sales taxes, property taxes, and automobile excise taxes

are among the most common but there are numerous 

others, including parking charges, special assessments, and

utility taxes.

If you are seeking funding for a major capital investment,

TCRP Report Number 89, Financing Capital Investments: a

Primer for the Transit Practitioner, may be a helpful resource.

It identifies four different types of local funding strategies:

debt mechanisms, capital lease financing mechanisms, equity 

and partnership mechanisms, and credit enhancement 

mechanisms.

Portland seems fairly typical of most medium-sized transit

properties. Despite gas tax restrictions, they have managed to

find other ways to fund transit—state appropriations, local

ballot measures for bonds secured by local property taxes, an

employer payroll tax, etc.

San Francisco Bay Area Has a Strategic Expansion Plan

Like all metropolitan regions, the Bay Area has a fiscally constrained

long range plan (LRP) designed to finance transportation plans and

programs. Because its LRP budget is only large enough to sustain the

existing system and accommodate marginal improvements, local officials have also prepared a more ambitious and optimistic unconstrained supplemental plan that would serve expected growth and

improve congestion levels. 

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the Bay Area’s

MPO, took the lead in developing this plan with significant input from

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), other regional transportation, and 

the public.

The final “Bay Area Blueprint for the 21st Century” identifies $33 billion

worth of unfunded transportation needs in the region of which about

one-tenth ($3.8 billion) are addressed in the early plan phases. Transit

improvements represent about two-thirds of the total project costs. 

The Blueprint Plan does not outline final investment priorities.

Instead, it serves as a ready reference in developing coherent packages of programs and projects when funding opportunities arise.
TRANSIT AT THE TABLE: A GUIDE TO PARTICIPATION IN METROPOLITAN DECISIONMAKING

58

increased tolls and related strategies to both relieve congestion and provide new revenue streams. Transit officials could

advocate and share in the benefits of this new trend.

Non-Traditional State Funding Sources

Although not always a part of the formal metropolitan planning process, MPOs often support transit agency efforts to

secure independent funding sources and bring them into the

process. This improves their status as a service provider and

elevates their status at the MPO table.

Two states where transit operators have flexible state funding

were of particular interest—Maryland and California.

According to a July 2003—Number 60 TCRP Research

Results Digest (Characteristics of State Funding for Public

Transportation—2002), both states ranked in the top six for

per capita funding of transit. At $118 per capita, Maryland

was second only to the District of Columbia, and California

was sixth at $64 per capita. If ranked by total level of 

investment in transit, California was first with $2.1 billion,

and Maryland was sixth with $627 million.

“In Maryland, Transit Has Gotten Its ‘Fair Share’, 

And Then Some”

Maryland has the only SDOT in the country that has all modes under

one roof—highway, transit, airports, and ports. Funded by the consolidated Transportation Trust Fund (TTF), funds go to whatever the priority needs of the moment might be—there are no set-asides or divvying up of the pie based on other considerations. Funding comes from

the gas tax, vehicle registration, license fees, a state corporate

income tax, and other taxes. While Maryland might not flex much

funding to transit outside of CMAQ, they had traditionally provided

much more money to transit than other states from their own “flexible

fund.” In FY 2002, transit received 30 percent of the state’s total

transportation capital budget. A local official estimates that, considering combined operating and capital funds, transit has traditionally

taken about 60 percent of the TTF funds. He also noted that because

the TTF funds were not as economically cyclical as other state taxes,

there was more certainty. Thus, while outside the norm, the Maryland

experience has been exemplary from a transit funding perspective.

Another state with a large pot of discretionary funds has been

California. According to the TCRP Digest number 89 report

cited above: “State funding supports the full spectrum of

transit needs—capital, operations, and planning.The primary

source of state transit funding continued to be revenues from

the 1/4 cent of the 7 1/4 percent retail sales tax flowing

through the local transportation fund established by the

Transportation Development Act. Revenues are collected by

the state and returned to each county according to the

amount that was collected in that county...State gasoline and

diesel sales taxes flow to transit through the ‘State

Transportation Assistance Fund/Public Transportation

Account.” Finally, approximately half the governor’s traffic

congestion relief program in 2000 ($2.6 billion) was dedicated

to transit, with $574 million allocated in 2002.

As described, this money flows down to the counties, which

also have broad discretionary control over their money. The

TCRP report also found that regional transportation agencies in California more than doubled the state transportation

improvement program (STIP) funds available for transit

from FY 2000 to FY 2002. A Valley Transportation

Authority (VTA) official reports high satisfaction with this

flexibility and “launders” money around to different programs

Denver, Colorado
to expedite project development as much as possible. As a

County Management Association with both road and transit

responsibilities, VTA tries to avoid using FHWA funds for

roads where possible because of the lengthy National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) reviews that its

programs trigger. Thus, VTA has used local dollars 

earmarked for transit for highways while spending Federal

highway dollars on transit.

Other states that have contributed heavily to transit in the

past (New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Pennsylvania) obtain

their funding from a range of sources, including general

funds, motor fuel taxes, toll roads, heavy truck fees, diesel fuel

taxes, motor vehicle registration fees, casino revenues,

corporate franchise tax surcharges, long lines taxes, base

petroleum business taxes, realty taxes, public utility taxes, auto

rental taxes, vehicle lease taxes, tire fees, lottery funds, and

general state obligation bonds.

For transit operators in need of supplemental funding, it may

be worthwhile to explore what funding sources other states

use for transit, and to try tapping them in your state.

Pennsylvania provides an example of how this might be

achieved on a small scale. In the 1990s, Bill Millar (who then

headed Pittsburgh’s transit agency) faced state gas tax restrictions requiring a constitutional amendment to gain access to

that fund source for transit. Realizing this would be a tough

battle that, if won, would only serve to further shrink an

already under-funded pot of money, he instead collaborated

with Lou Gambaccini (then head of Philadelphia’s transit

agency) to go after a combination of five-state “junk taxes”

[his term]. Business leaders from his Citizen’s Advisory

Committee helped by going to Harrisburg to testify before

the state legislature, and the initiative passed. Unfortunately,

the largest revenue generator, a utility tax, became much less

productive after a few years when deregulation occurred. Still,

this example serves as a model for how a transit agency might

gain additional state funding—be resourceful in identifying

supplemental revenue sources, partner with other major 

transit operators in the state, and enlist the support of others

who may be helpful—including business leaders, citizens,

59

Washington, D.C.

and local elected officials. Again, the more funding transit

agencies can bring to the MPO table, the more powerful 

they are likely to be.

Although most states are reluctant to propose a gas tax

increase, Salt Lake’s Wasatch Front Regional Council has

done so, beginning in 2006, which includes a half-cent jump

in Utah Transit Authority’s (UTA) share in the sales tax 

revenue to cover future transit needs. Utah State DOT has

also proposed a 5-cent increase in the gas tax by 2005—and

every six years thereafter—to pay for road projects. UTA 

supports both proposals even though only the MPO proposal

would directly benefit transit. They feel that by alleviating

highway funding shortfalls more general state money may 

be available for transit investment and/or make it easier to 

compete for flexible funding.

Financial Planning Counts
METRO

St. Louis, Missouri
The MPO’s TIP translates the long range transportation plan

into specific fundable projects that have individual cost estimates, proposed schedules, and committed sponsors. To be

eligible for Federal funding, a highway or transit project must

be included in the MPO’s long range plan and TIP. In areas

that have air quality problems (classified as “nonattainment”

or “maintenance”), the TIP must also include all regionally

significant projects regardless of funding source.

The TIP process is where everyone is supposed to “come

together” to consider and prioritize projects identified in the

long range plan, as well as in recent sub-area and corridor

studies.The projects listed in the TIP for implementation are

limited to those that can be afforded with resources identified

by the MPO’s cooperative revenue forecasting process.

Once the TIP is adopted, the status of projects must be

tracked and adjustments made throughout the year to achieve

the greatest benefits for transit. This tracking information

may identify slippages in the schedules of highway projects

that may provide opportunities to propose transit alternatives.

No actual TIP development process is neat or simple.

Different MPOs approach the task in very different ways. No

matter how it is approached in your area, you need to be at the

MPO table advocating your needs when the TIP is being

prepared, tracked, and adjusted, just as you need to be there

for preparing the long range plan, conducting corridor studies,

and cooperatively estimating future revenues. All the gains you

make at those other tables can be leveraged—or lost—at the

TIP table. A strong follow-through by you at the TIP table is

the only way to ensure fair treatment of transit in your region.

Transit operators and MPO staff revealed how this process

plays out in different places.

In Dallas, they use a “Partnership Program” for determining

how to use flex funds. All of those funds are pooled at the

MPO, the North Central Texas Council of Governments,

61

and MPO members decide a regional focus for the TIP.

Projects are then selected based on their support of that

regional focus.

In Albany, the Capital District Transportation Committee

MPO has set up a process for soliciting projects and 

evaluating them using both quantitative and qualitative criteria. The criteria are objective, focusing on moving people, not

just vehicles, and therefore are applicable to transit, as well as

non-traditional projects. The MPO also recently acquired a

greatly enhanced capability to do transit demand modeling,

allowing the transit agency to make an even stronger case for

CMAQ funding.

Even in a state where the state DOT has a strong emphasis on highways, “We’re mostly satisfied. We get our share of projects, particularly from CMAQ. We’re the only transit agency in our region, so our 

proposal is generally accepted without modification. Our basic strategy is to use formula dollars to meet basic needs, and to go after flexible dollars for strategic projects.”

— Kristina Younger, Planning Manager, Capital District Transportation Authority

In Seattle, with a number of operators, it’s a very bottoms-up

process. The Puget Sound Regional Council (Seattle MPO)

has four counties, with transit operators mostly based within

those counties. In addition, a new multi-county transit agency

was recently created, and the MPO has a transit operator

committee representing the larger transit systems in the

region. Most transit projects come to the MPO already prioritized within their individual county-based processes.

Those individual proposals add up to the MPO transit plan.

Tampa, Florida has the opposite situation. With Florida’s

practice of designating counties as the MPOs, the Tampa

metropolitan area has four single-county MPOs in one area.

However, the dynamic is not too different than in Seattle—

with its county-by-county TIPs. In the most heavily urbanized county in the Tampa region (Hillsborough), the transit

agency has a voting seat on the MPO policy board and has

traditionally received quite a bit of enhancement, STP, and

CMAQ funding.

Some other areas also have TIP processes that rely heavily on

decisions made outside of the MPO process. Often the transit

IV The Transportation

Improvement Program (TIP) is

the Bottom Line 
system, especially when there is a dominant one, submits its

own transit TIP component for inclusion in the MPO TIP.

In the Nation’s Capital, the three-state configuration of the

region produces separate District of Columbia, Maryland,

and Virginia TIP components, which are strongly influenced

by the three state DOTs, and are incorporated into the metropolitan TIP.

The powerfully legislated and heavily funded countywide

congestion management agencies (CMAs) in California

(illustrated by cases in the San Francisco area, which has

more than 20 transit operators) complicate the area-wide role

of the MPO. The single-county MPOs in Florida’s multicounty metropolitan areas provided additional evidence of an

emerging trend toward sub-metropolitan decisionmaking in

large urban areas.

In these cases, the primary purpose of the MPO process is to

consolidate and reconcile differences between the sub-regional

transit components of the TIP. Bringing these separate parts

together is critical, requiring transit agencies to be at the table

as it occurs. This is no time for surprises. And, TIP development processes that use objective, mode-neutral criteria may

benefit transit most.

Once the TIP is negotiated and adopted, attention shifts to

tracking implementation and results. Do the TIP projects

get funded and completed? Are they on schedule and within budget? Do their costs and timing schedules need to be

adjusted? If a project cannot progress on schedule, which

one(s) should take its place? And, how well do transit operators stay “at the table” throughout this process to take advantage of opportunities to advance their projects as they arise? 

Systematic reporting on the implementation status of the

TIP was an explicit requirement set forth in TEA-21, calling

for such a report annually. Transit and MPO officials in areas

including Albany, Charlotte, Denver, Pittsburgh, Salt Lake

City, and New York City indicated that improved information sharing among regional implementing agencies is necessary to make this tracking system work well.Transit operators

need to monitor TIP implementation on an ongoing basis

throughout the year in order to be in a position to capitalize

on any additional funding opportunities brought about by

schedule delays in other projects. Two of the MPOs participating in this study have adopted policies to reprogram TIP

funds that are not being used in a timely way. In San

Francisco, they call it the “Timeliness of Funds Policy,” and

in St. Louis they call it the “Reasonable Progress Policy.”

These are essentially “use it or lose it” policies. In some cases,

highway projects get into the TIP without the same kind of

rigorous planning required for transit projects, and then get

slowed down by environmental reviews, unexpected cost

overruns, or other factors. Sometimes this provides an opportunity to move transit projects ahead to avoid losing Federal

funds already assigned to the metropolitan area.

In Columbus,Ohio, the MPO assigns a full-time staff member to monitor the TIP projects, maintaining a file that is

published monthly and sent to the Technical and Citizens’

Advisory Committees. It is also posted on the MPO website.

In fact, many projects do not stay on schedule. Because everyone can track delays, as projects drop behind, MPO partners

have an opportunity to propose others as substitutes. The

MPO and transit authority work together closely on this, and

transit has benefited.

The Seattle MPO produces a TIP project status memo every

two months, which is addressed by the Regional Project

Evaluation Committee, the group responsible for preparing

the TIP. The memo draws attention to projects that are lagging and uses peer pressure to spur remedial action. This

process has benefited greatly from strong state DOT and

MPO cooperation. Both agencies send project information as

soon as it’s available. The state DOT stays on top of this

information and connects the MPO to reporting systems

already in place between them and public works staff in the

local jurisdictions. The DOT appreciates the MPO’s work to

track those 86 jurisdictions. MPO Regional Strategy Advisor

King Cushman commented, “I’ve heard from other MPOs

that relations with some of their state DOT representatives

are not so great; I guess we’re lucky.”

Adoption of the TIP is not the end of the process. Tracking

projects and making adjustments throughout the year 

has potential payoffs for transit agencies willing to 

follow through.

TRANSIT AT THE TABLE: A GUIDE TO PARTICIPATION IN METROPOLITAN DECISIONMAKING

62
63
The T

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
APPENDIX A 

65

Self-Assessment Checklist For Transit Operators

Key findings from the study, Transit at the Table: A Guide to Participation in Metropolitan Decisionmaking, were used in 

preparing the following questions for transit operators to use in assessing their profile and participation in metropolitan 

planning. The indicators are generic and not exhaustive. As such, these questions should be regarded as only the starting point

for subsequent discussion focused on local issues.

While answering these questions may illuminate issues and opportunities, perhaps the greatest value of this work is in the

resulting discussion among planning partners. The checklist may be applied effectively in facilitated group settings, as a 

useful catalyst to discussion, and with less attention to scores. “Yes” responses generally suggest more positive Transit at the

Table experiences.

Transit at the Table experiences:

1. Representation on the MPO Board and Committees. YES NO

• Is the signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between your agency 

and the MPO up-to-date reflecting policy, responsibility, or funding changes? —— ——

• Does the MOU identify explicit roles for transit operators in the MPO process? —— —— 

• Are you a voting member of the MPO Board (or have Board representation)? —— ——

• Are you represented on, and active in, MPO policy and technical committees? —— ——

2. Involvement in Planning and Special Studies.

• Are you involved in developing the metropolitan area long range plan? —— ——

• Do you monitor progress and products of the metropolitan planning process? —— ——

• Does the transportation plan integrate public transportation elements with highway,

pedestrian, bicycle, air, and other modes? —— ——

• Is the metropolitan transportation plan coordinated with local land use plans? —— ——

• Are transit-supportive development policies and strategies included in the plan? —— ——

• Are transportation system management, maintenance, and operations included? —— ——

• Does the MPO plan include plans/policies that highlight the benefits of transit? —— ——

• Does the MPO plan consider economic development, job access, air quality,

social services, health and safety, and/or historic preservation? —— ——
YES NO

• Are you involved in educating the public or promoting regional comprehensive

plans and politics? —— ——

• Are you involved in corridor studies to ensure that all modes are considered? —— ——

• Do you propose work tasks for the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP)? —— ——

• Does the UPWP respond to transit needs? —— ——

3. Involvement in Funding and Implementation.

• Are you involved in identifying, prioritizing, and scheduling projects for the TIP? —— ——

• Do you feel that the TIP prioritization process is objective and fact-based? —— ——

• Do you feel that you receive a fair share of the region’s project funding? —— ——

• Is the MPO’s status reporting of TIP project funding timely and reliable? —— ——

• Are you involved in cooperatively forecasting revenues for the Plan and TIP? —— ——

• Are your revenues considered and incorporated in these estimates? —— ——

• Are you able to assume future revenue enhancement plans and proposals? —— ——

4. Involvement in Planning Certification Reviews.

• Are you involved in the Planning Certification Review process? —— ——

• Do you provide materials for the FTA-FHWA desk review? —— ——

• Are you involved in the on-site review? —— ——

• Have you suggested other agencies/people for the Federal team to contact? —— ——

• Have you identified issues for the Federal review team to consider? —— ——

Appendix A

66
67
METRO 

Seattle, Washington
Study Methodology and Characteristics of Selected Areas

The purpose of this study is to document and share successful practices that transit operators are using to get involved in decisionmaking for planning and programming the allocation of Federal-aid highway and transit funds in states and areas where

transit agencies operate.The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and the 1998 Transportation

Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) enhanced the opportunities for transit operators to get involved in and influence

the metropolitan planning and decision-making processes required for receiving Federal transit and highway aid.

Federal Transportation Planning Requirement

Federal planning requirements under these two acts apply to transit operators differently in large metropolitan areas (areas with

populations greater than 200,000 known as transportation management areas, or TMAs for short), in smaller metropolitan

areas, and in non-metropolitan areas. In each metropolitan area, the “appropriate” transit agency must have a formal memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Federally recognized metropolitan planning organization (MPO). These MOUs

outline how transit agencies will be involved in the Federally required comprehensive, cooperative, and continuing transportation planning process for the entire metropolitan area. However, the Federal program requires that the transit agency be on

the MPO policy board only in TMAs, and then only if the MPO has been redesignated since the 1991 enactment of ISTEA.

Whether or not the transit agency is on the policy board, Federal laws give transit agencies in TMAs more leverage in the

MPO process than their counterparts have in smaller metropolitan areas.

In non-metropolitan areas, where no MPO planning process is Federally required, the state department of transportation

(SDOT) is required to carry out statewide transportation planning in consultation with local officials having transportation

responsibilities. In most non-metropolitan areas, local officials have responsibilities for transit as well as for roads and highways, and the SDOT administers Federal aid for rural transit. In this way, Federal law requires SDOT consultations with rural

and small town transit officials, but it provides few guidelines for how to conduct these consultations. Federal laws require

statewide and metropolitan transportation planning to be coordinated with each other.

Transit Operators

Several thousand transit operating agencies exist across the nation. Some operate high-capacity heavy rail and/or light rail systems in addition to buses, and sometimes paratransit services for the elderly and disabled as well. Others operate only buses or

paratransit, or some combination of the two. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) uses separate Federal-aid grant programs to support urban and rural transit operators and works with separate national associations representing these two components of the nation’s transit community. The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) represents the urban

transit operators, while the American Public Works Association (APWA) and the Community Transportation Association of

America (CTAA) represent the rural transit operators.

69

APPENDIX B 
Most major metropolitan areas now have a dominant transit operator responsible for at least the rail and bus systems and these

large urban systems account for 80 percent of the nation’s total transit ridership. Increasingly, however, significant local feeder

and circulation systems are separate. As a consequence, many major metropolitan areas have multiple transit operators. Smaller

urban and rural areas have large numbers of small operators.

Focusing the Study 

To assist FTA and the consultants with this study, a 21-member Technical Working Group (TWG) was established. It consisted of one elected official from an MPO Policy Board and a broad range of senior professionals representing US DOT headquarters and regional staff, SDOTs, MPOs, transit operators, and national associations (see Table B-1). As the study got

underway, the consultants worked with the TWG and FTA to focus the work on what would be most useful and practical 

to accomplish.

At the direction of the TWG, initial plans to sample all segments of the transit industry gave way to a focus on TMAs alone

when it became clear how diverse the areas and transit agencies are. Initial criteria for selecting transit operators were sensitive

to including diversity within the following factors:

• Metropolitan size (large, small, and non-metropolitan);

• Modes operated (rail and/or bus);

• Revenue sources (state, local, fare-box ratios, etc.);

• Geographic dispersion;

• Complexity of jurisdictional and organizational structures; and 

• Air quality attainment status.

The fundamental decision to focus on TMAs exclusively was based on: (1) the need to limit the number of cases so they could

be explored in enough depth to enable transit operator practices to be shared in usable form with other operators—and not do

a superficial statistical survey; (2) the fact that there were only about 120 TMAs (compared with all 340 MPOs and thousands

of local transit agencies)1 , and (3) greater familiarity with the larger transit operators, which helped to inform the choice of

which ones might yield helpful lessons. Simplifying the selection criteria allowed the consultants, FTA, and TWG to 

develop a short list of potential TMAs to study.

25 TMAs Studied

Although initial plans suggested a goal to explore MPO participation by transit operators in 50 areas, this number was cut in

half as the need to also consult with MPO officials in the selected TMAs was recognized. Ultimately, the 25 TMAs shown in

Figure 1 were agreed upon. They include air quality attainment and nonattainment areas, cases in each of FTA’s 10 regions,

areas with and without rail transit, areas that are relatively unified versus those that are heavily sub-regionalized, transit operators believed to be proactive in MPO relationships who could offer valued “lessons learned,” and TMAs with other representative characteristics. Every effort was made to select a diverse cross-section of metropolitan areas with populations 

over 200,000.

Appendix B

70

1. When the study commenced, the impact of the 2000 Census on the number of MPOs was not yet apparent. Current information from the

Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations indicates there are 383 MPOs nationwide, 149 of which are located in TMAs.
Appendix B

71

Characteristics of Selected Areas

The transit operators in each of the 25 selected TMAs were identified; they are listed in Table B-2, along with their website

addresses for more information.

They represent a variety of organizational structures and means of local financing, including units of local or state governments

funded through general tax revenues, special districts with or without taxing powers, and independent authorities with full

authority to levy and receive tax revenues, whether they come from property, sales, or other taxes.

Boston

Albany

New York

Baltimore

Washington, D.C.

Charlotte

Atlanta

Columbus Pittsburgh

St. Louis

Memphis Little Rock

Dallas

Houston

Minneapolis

Madison

Chicago

Denver

Salt Lake City

Las Vegas

San Diego

San Jose

San Francisco

Portland

Seattle

Figure 1: 25 TMAs Studied

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Appendix B

72

Table B-1: Transit Operators Interviewed

State City/Area Transit Operator Website

AR Little Rock Central Arkansas Transit Authority (CATA) www.cat.org

CA San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) www.sdcommute.com

CA San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) www.bart.gov

CA Santa Clara Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) www.vta.org

CO Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD) www.rtd-denver.com

DC Washington Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) www.wmata.com

GA Atlanta Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) www.itsmarta.com

IL Chicago Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) www.transitchicago.com

MA Boston Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) www.mbta.com

MD Baltimore Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) www.mtamaryland.com

MN Minneapolis Metro Transit www.metrotransit.org

MO St. Louis Metro (formerly Bi-State Development Agency) www.metrostlouis.org

NC Charlotte Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) www.charmeck.org/Departments/CATS

NV Las Vegas Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) www.rtcsouthernnevada.com

NY Albany Capital District Transportation Authority (CDTA) www.cdta.org

NY New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) www.nyct.org

OH Columbus Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) www.cota.com

OR Portland Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District (Tri-Met) www.trimet.org

PA Pittsburgh Port Authority of Allegheny County www.ridegold.com

TN Memphis Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA) www.matatransit.com

TX Dallas Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) www.dart.org

TX Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (Metro) www.ridemetro.org

UT Salt Lake City Utah Transit Authority (UTA) www.utabus.com

WA Seattle King County Metro Transit (Metro) http://transit.metrokc.gov

WI Madison Metro Transit System (Metro) www.ci.madison.wi.us/metro
Appendix B

73

Table B-2: Transit Participation in MPO

State City/Area Transit Vote on Transit Represented in

Policy Board? Technical/Policy

/Other Committee?

AR Little Rock Yes Yes

CA San Diego No Yes

CA San Francisco No Yes

CA Santa Clara No Yes

CO Denver No Yes

DC Washington Yes Yes

GA Atlanta No Yes

IL Chicago Yes Yes

MA Boston Yes Yes

MD Baltimore No Yes

MN Minneapolis No Yes

MO St. Louis Yes Yes

NC Charlotte No Yes

NV Las Vegas No No

NY Albany Yes Yes

NY New York Yes Yes

OH Columbus Yes Yes

OR Portland Yes Yes

PA Pittsburgh Yes Yes

TN Memphis No Yes

TX Dallas Yes Yes

TX Houston Yes Yes

UT Salt Lake City No Yes

WA Seattle No Yes

WI Madison Yes Yes

It is interesting to note that among the 25 TMAs studied in this report, 13 transit officials report having a vote on the MPO

Policy Board, whereas 12 do not. Representation on the Policy Board is not necessarily indicative of transit’s overall success in

multimodal metropolitan planning. The interviews with transit officials summarized in this report cite several successful 

examples of cooperation and satisfaction although those with direct representation argue that it is preferable to have a direct

vote and several of those without such status indicated publicly or privately that they desired a seat at the table. Those few

reporting satisfaction with indirect Board representation feel adequately represented by their elected officials. Most are also

active in other Board committees they feel do much of the supporting work for decisionmaking by the Policy Board. All 

but one of the transit officials interviewed report direct representation via transit staff in a technical, policy, or other 

committee of the MPO.
Appendix B

74

During six years of Federal transportation spending under ISTEA, nearly $3.3 billion were flexed from FHWA and obligated by FTA. This increased during the next seven years under TEA-21 to nearly $6.2 billion, for a 13-year total of approximately $9.4 billion. Though summing to a relatively small amount of total Federal spending across all surface transportation

As indicated below, selected TMAs included areas of varying attainment of Federal air quality standards, for one or more 

pollutants (e.g. ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, et al.). The attainment status indicated in Table B-4 was reported by the transit official interviewed for this report and may not indicate the specific pollutant for which the area is in 

nonattainment status. The air quality status for a particular TMA is important in the context of flexible funding. Only areas

in maintenance or nonattainment of Federal air quality standards can access funding from the Congestion Mitigation and Air

Quality (CMAQ) program. Transit is typically key among strategies to reduce both congestion and air pollution and can 

benefit significantly from flexed CMAQ funding.

Table B-3: Air Quality Status

State City/Area AQ Status (Self-reported by Transit Operators) 

AR Little Rock Attainment

CA San Diego Serious nonattainment for Ozone

CA San Francisco Moderate nonattainment for Ozone

CA Santa Clara Moderate nonattainment for Ozone

CO Denver Maintenance

DC Washington Serious nonattainment for Ozone

GA Atlanta Nonattainment for Ozone

IL Chicago Severe nonattainment for Ozone

MA Boston Nonattainment

MD Baltimore Severe nonattainment for Ozone

MN Minneapolis Attainment

MO St. Louis Nonattainment for Ozone; nonattainment for CO

NC Charlotte Maintenance

NV Las Vegas Nonattainment for CO; moderate nonattainment for PM10

NY Albany Nonattainment for Ozone

NY New York Severe nonattainment for Ozone

OH Columbus Maintenance

OR Portland Maintenance

PA Pittsburgh Nonattainment for CO; maintenance for PM10

TN Memphis Nonattainment for Ozone

TX Dallas Nonattainment for Ozone

TX Houston Severe nonattainment for Ozone

UT Salt Lake City Nonattainment for PM10

WA Seattle Maintenance

WI Madison Attainment
Appendix B

75

modes, these amounts represent significant resources invested in local transit services. These funds have supported the maintenance and continuance of established transit services in older areas and the expansion of new services in fast growing areas

of the country. The decision by local decisionmakers to flex or not to flex is based upon a number of considerations that are

unique to each metropolitan area. (See Section III.2.)

For information purposes only, the funding amounts obligated under both ISTEA and TEA-21 for each of the 25 TMAs

selected for study in this report are reported in Table B-5. No inference is made here regarding the range in flex amounts,

both between ISTEA and TEA-21 as well as among TMAs. Decreases in total funds flexed from ISTEA to TEA-21, for

example, do not necessarily indicate a corresponding decrease in support for transit at the local level; rather, the fluctuation

may reflect different needs and ways of addressing those needs during each Federal funding period.

AR Little Rock $3,495,000 $5,614,443 $9,109,443 $2,119,443

CA San Diego $23,486,983 $56,054,766 $79,541,749 $32,567,783

CA San Francisco $18,800,900 $110,263,436 $129,064,336 $91,462,536

CA Santa Clara $38,829,750 $161,361,876 $200,191,626 $122,532,126

CO Denver $3,396,000 $64,904,292 $68,300,292 $61,508,292

DC Washington $71,416,439 $56,122,854 $127,539,293 -$15,293,585

GA Atlanta $13,929,221 $108,821,000 $122,750,221 $94,891,779

IL Chicago $40,683,032 $9,538,284 $50,221,316 -$31,144,748

MA Boston $124,285,896 $51,145,186 $175,431,082 -$73,140,710

MD Baltimore $23,712,000 $89,630,770 $113,342,770 $65,918,770

MN Minneapolis $4,800,000 $0 $4,800,000 -$4,800,000

MO St. Louis $14,331,090 $85,449,875 $99,780,965 $71,118,785

NC Charlotte $0 $5,547,240 $5,547,240 $5,547,240

NV Las Vegas $0 $14,154,967 $14,154,967 $14,154,967

NY Albany $10,748,000 $21,591,250 $32,339,250 $10,843,250

NY New York $724,371,599 $408,577,102 $1,132,948,701 -$315,794,497

OH Columbus $4,943,600 $20,375,268 $25,318,868 $15,431,668

OR Portland $71,294,109 $92,051,311 $163,345,420 $20,757,202

PA Pittsburgh $123,811,154 $54,920,050 $178,731,204 -$68,891,104

TN Memphis $1,420,000 $8,428,000 $9,848,000 $7,008,000

TX Dallas $26,704,000 $17,855,323 $44,559,323 -$8,848,677

TX Houston $0 $56,299,006 $56,299,006 $56,299,006

UT Salt Lake City $5,228,020 $26,001,871 $31,229,891 $20,773,851

WA Seattle $26,782,834 $27,672,128 $54,454,962 $889,294

WI Madison $1,600,000 $0 $1,600,000 -$1,600,000

Table B-4: Funds Flexed to Transit Under ISTEA And TEA-21

State City/Area ISTEA TEA-21 Total TOTAL Flexed Change in Funds 

Total Flexed to Flexed to to Transit Flexed to Transit From to 

Transit Transit (1991-2004) ISTEA to TEA-21
Interpretation and Use of Results 

Because of the small number of cases and the way they were selected, the results of this study should not be interpreted as 

having statistical validity. The results are insightful and practical to use, but they are based on too few cases to generalize in 

a statistical sense; therefore, no summary statistics based on the results are presented here.

Each metropolitan area is unique. It has its own culture based on its long-term political, social, economic, legal, and planning

experiences. What works in one place may not work in another. Although there is certainly no single best way to improve planning, strengthen interagency relationships, or tap additional revenues, all the study areas shared the need to do so. The insights

gained in this study provide sound tools and advice to build upon; they can have general applicability in the hands of seasoned

professionals and policy officials charged with getting the most out of the MPO process by taking advantage of the wide range

of opportunities it provides to strengthen transportation planning in their areas. Much of the advice is simply good political

strategy for any transit operator, regardless of whatever Federal requirements may be in place.

Discussion Guide

To develop a body of structured insights about transit operator participation in the MPO process, a discussion guide was

designed to use in contacting each area’s primary transit agency. The discussions were conducted by telephone. Attempts were

made to talk with the agency’s GM. Where that was not possible, the senior transportation planner was substituted. Most discussions lasted at least one hour, with many taking longer. In many cases, follow-up calls to the original contact or another

person in the transit agency was required to fill in additional information.

Based on the transit agency’s information and the review of the most recent MPO certification report (discussed in Section

I.6 above), follow-up calls to the MPO executive director or transportation planning director. The purpose was to confirm,

refine, or get a second view of key points. These calls usually were shorter than those with the transit agency contacts.

Additional follow-up calls were made to other regional participants as needed to fill in information gaps.

The discussion guide for transit operators was designed to ask about the transit agency’s involvement in each aspect of the

MPO process. A brief outline follows.

1. Identification of the Transit Agency and Discussant, including some background information such as:

• Basic characteristics of the agency

• Extent of flexible funding being used

• Highlights of the most recent MPO certification review

2. Organizational Structure of the Transit Agency 

3. Experiences with Involvement in the Following MPO Practices 

• Policy Board

• Technical committee

• Membership in other MPO committees 

• Transit-oriented alternatives analysis or MIS

• Highway-led or MPO-led corridor study 

• Participation in MPO committees in which the transit agency is not a member 

Appendix B

76
Appendix B

77

• MOU with the MPO defining transit agency roles and relationships 

• MPO long range transportation/land use planning 

• Development and use of the transportation models and forecasting process 

• TIP development 

• Project selection process

• Reporting on status of projects in the TIP 

• Incorporating transit agency plans into MPO plans 

• Cooperative revenue forecasting for fiscal constraint 

• Negotiating highway/transit fund flexing 

• Developing the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) 

• MPO certification process 

• Other 

4. Best Practices (self nominated) 

5. Additional Opportunities (wish the transit agency could be involved, but is not now involved)

6. FTA/FHWA’s Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program 

7. Barriers Encountered When Participating in the MPO Process (rate on a 5-point scale from bothersome to prohibitive)

8. Importance of the MPO Process to the Transit Agency (rate on a 5-point scale from unimportant to essential, and 

comment if desired) 

9. Importance of Other Partners in the MPO Process (more, same, or less important than the MPO itself) 

• SDOT

• FTA

• FHWA 

• Public Service Commission (or other regulatory body) 

• Individual local governments 

• Chamber of commerce or other business organizations 

• Civic or citizens groups 

• Mass media 

• National associations 

• Other (specify) 

10. Anything of significance that was missed 

11. Additional contacts that should be made
The discussion notes are confidential, but key quotes illustrating general themes and best practices were cleared for use 

in this report.

In addition to this feedback, the study team analyzed all available FTA/FHWA certification reviews for the selected study

regions over the past six years as well as recent summary analyses provided by FTA. Internet and other research investigations

were also made in the 25 study regions. Parsons Brinckerhoff local office managers and staff frequently provided valuable 

background information.

MPO representatives were interviewed in depth from most of the 25 study transit agencies originally contacted to verify 

information obtained and to obtain the MPO perspective on various events and issues. Each interview was tailored to the 

specific local situation based largely on the information gained in the transit operator interviews. These interviews contributed

enormously to the depth of the analysis and understanding and many MPO representatives are cited in the report.

Finally, other parties were contacted to round out the analysis including SDOT officials, citizen and business representatives,

and others.

Throughout the study, TWG members provided valuable insight and advice to FTA and the study team.

Appendix B

78

The consultants also conducted two focus group discussions with transit agency GMs at APTA’s 2003 legislative conference,

using an abbreviated set of questions to probe key issues focused largely on interpersonal and interagency relationships in the

MPO process. A list of focus group participants is presented in Table B-5.

Table B-5: Focus Group Participants

Name Affiliation

Barry Barker General Manager, Transit Authority of River City (Louisville)

Joe Calabrese General Manager, Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority

Peter Cipolla General Manager, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (California)

Shirley DeLibero Former President and CEO, Metro (Houston)

Sharon Dent Former Executive Director, Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority (Tampa)

William Hudson General Manager, Memphis Area Transit Authority

Rick Walsh Former General Manager, King County Department of Transportation/Metro Transit (Seattle)

Federal Transit Administration

Federal Highway Administration

A Publication of the Transportation

Planning Capacity Building Program

Planning for a Better Tomorrow

www.planning.dot.gov

U.S. Department

of Transportation

VA-90-1004-04-1

For More Information Contact:

Federal Transit Administration

Office of Planning and Environment (TPE)

400 7th Street, SW, Room 9413

Washington, DC 20590

(202) 366-6385

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Planning (HEPP)

400 7th Street, SW, Room 3301

Washington, DC 20590

(202) 366-0106