Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Options Exist to Enhance Transportation Planning Capacity and Federal Oversight
Published: 2009-09-09T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) are responsible for transportation planning in metropolitan areas; however, little is known about what has been achieved by the planning efforts. This congressionally requested report describes (1) the characteristics and responsibilities of MPOs, (2) the challenges that MPOs face in carrying out their responsibilities, (3) how the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) provides oversight for MPOs and the extent to which this improves transportation planning, and (4) the options that have been proposed to enhance transportation planning. To address these objectives, GAO surveyed all 381 MPOs (with an 86 percent response rate) and conducted case studies of eight metropolitan areas and conducted a survey of program managers.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: MPOs vary greatly in terms of capacity and responsibilities. Some MPOs are supported by one or two staff, while others have over 100 staff. While half of MPOs represent populations of less than 200,000, some represent millions. MPOs are typically housed within a regional planning council or a city or county government agency, but also may operate as independent agencies. Most MPOs receive the majority of their planning funds from federal sources, but also receive funds from other sources such as states or localities. The technical capacity of MPOs also varies significantly, both in terms of the type of model used to develop travel demand forecasts and the number of staff available to perform such forecasts. Some MPOs have acquired additional responsibilities, such as project implementation, beyond federal requirements. MPOs cited many challenges in our survey and interviews, primarily related to funding and staffing, authority, and technical capacity. About 85 percent of all MPOs responding to our survey cited the lack of transportation planning funding as a challenge to transportation planning. About half of our survey respondents stated that the lack of flexibility for using federal planning funds inhibits them from conducting comprehensive transportation planning. Staffing constraints, such as limited number of staff and lack of trained staff, also impact MPOs' ability to conduct transportation planning. Finally, according to our survey and interviews, some MPOs lack the technical capacity and data necessary to conduct the type of complex transportation modeling required to meet their planning needs. DOT's Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) work together to oversee MPOs, but given the process-oriented approach of the oversight, it is difficult to determine whether their oversight is improving transportation planning. MPOs representing more than 200,000 in population are subject to federal certification reviews. The certification reviews focus on procedural compliance with planning requirements, not transportation outcomes. MPOs generally view this federal process as pro forma in nature and place a greater value on informal assistance provided by both federal and state governments. Several proposals have been developed by government and industry associations that could address some of the resource, authority, and technical challenges facing MPOs. For example, (1) allowing the use of transportation planning funds for more activities could better meet the needs of some metropolitan areas; (2) varying MPOs' planning requirements and authority or changing the legal definition of MPOs could address varying capacity and planning needs; (3) increasing federal investment in modeling and data gathering could improve the technical capability of MPOs and bring a greater degree of reliability and consistency across MPOs to travel demand forecasting; and (4) making the planning process more performance-based could allow FTA and FHWA to better assess MPOs' progress in achieving specific results.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Metropolitan areas are the centers of much social and economic activity in  the United States. The largest 100 of these areas house more than 65  percent of our population and produce 75 percent of our national  economic output. They are also where most seaport tonnage arrives and  departs, transit miles are ridden, and rail and air passengers board.  However, the productivity of these economic centers, and as a result the  economic vitality of the United States, is being threatened by a number of  transportation challenges, such as increasing levels of congestion. These  challenges are significantly affected by decisions on how federal  transportation funds are invested and these decisions are shaped by the  transportation planning efforts undertaken by the 381 metropolitan  planning organizations (MPO).
To encourage the development of efficient and effective transportation  systems, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962 required urban  transportation planning as a condition for receiving federal-aid  transportation funds in urban areas. The act also provided funding for  regional transportation planning. To reflect the growing sense that local  elected officials and citizens should be given a larger role in this regional  transportation decision-making process, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of  1973 required the designation of MPOs in urban areas with populations of  more than 50,000 people to carry out a continuing, cooperative, and  comprehensive (3-C) planning process. Recognizing the importance of  metropolitan areas and the need to fully integrate these areas into  transportation investment decisions, the Intermodal Surface  Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 devolved greater responsibility for  planning and implementation of transportation projects to MPOs.  Subsequently, in 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient  Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), the current  surface transportation program authorization act, added additional  transportation planning requirements to MPOs’ responsibilities, while also  providing additional time for MPOs to make updates to their plans and  programs and increasing federal funding to MPOs to respond to such  responsibilities. Little is known, though, about what has been achieved by  the federal government’s investment in metropolitan transportation  planning. As the September 2009 expiration of SAFETEA-LU approaches,  more complete information on the effectiveness of MPOs’ transportation  planning activities is needed, especially in light of government and  industry associations’ proposals for increasing or modifying MPOs’  authority, responsibilities, and funding. Accordingly, you asked us to  examine (1) the characteristics and responsibilities of MPOs; (2) the  challenges that MPOs face in carrying out their responsibilities; (3) how  the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) provides oversight for MPOs  and the extent to which this improves transportation planning; and (4) the  options that have been proposed to enhance transportation planning.
To address these objectives, we reviewed existing legislation, regulations,  and program guidance concerning MPOs’ transportation planning  responsibilities and the federal certification process; reviewed proposals  to change or reform current MPO planning responsibilities; interviewed  Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Highway  Administration (FHWA) officials and representatives from industry  associations such as the Association of Metropolitan Planning  Organizations and the Transportation Research Board (TRB), as well as  state departments of transportation, to obtain their perspectives on MPOs’  planning activities, variations among MPOs, the federal certification  process, and proposals to improve the current planning process. We also  conducted case studies of eight MPOs in four states that we selected based  on population and structure, among other things, which included  reviewing the MPOs’ transportation plans and interviewing MPO officials,  the state departments of transportation, the relevant FHWA division office  and FTA regional office, transit agencies, and other regional associations.  In addition, we observed an FHWA-FTA MPO certification review; and  surveyed all 381 legally designated MPOs to gain information on their  varying roles, responsibilities, capacity, the challenges they face in  meeting their planning responsibilities, and options to improve the  transportation planning process. The results of our survey can be found at  GAO-09-867SP. To determine the various options to address MPOs’  challenges, we reviewed proposals from the Association of Metropolitan  Planning Organizations (AMPO), the American Association of State  Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO), the American Public  Transportation Association (APTA), the Brookings Institution, the  previous and current DOT administrations, and the June 2009 House  Transportation and Infrastructure Committee blueprint for the surface  transportation reauthorization. We also discussed suggestions for  improving the planning process with federal and state officials, as well as  the eight MPOs we interviewed.
For the purposes of this report, we refer to MPOs representing populations  of less than 200,000 as “small MPOs,” MPOs representing populations  between 200,000 and 1 million as “medium MPOs,” and MPOs representing  populations above 1 million as “large MPOs.” Appendix I contains  additional information about our scope and methodology. We conducted  this performance audit from September 2008 to September 2009 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those  standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,  appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence  obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives.
We provided a copy of this report to DOT for their review and comment.  DOT agreed to consider our recommendations and provided technical  comments which we incorporated into the report, as appropriate.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: MPOs, representing local governments and working in coordination with  state departments of transportation and major providers of transportation  services, have responsibility for the regional transportation planning  processes in urbanized areas. (See figure 2 for a summary of these  processes.) A core function of MPOs is to establish and manage a fair and  impartial setting for effective transportation decision making in an  urbanized area. To receive federal transportation funding, any project in  an urbanized area must emerge from the relevant MPO and state  department of transportation planning process. MPOs, which generally  have a governing policy board consisting of local elected officials and  appropriate state and public transportation officials, facilitate decision  making on regional transportation issues including major capital  investment projects and priorities. MPOs also generally have a technical  advisory committee (including engineers, planners, and other local staff);  citizen’s advisory committee; and additional committees, such as a bicycle  and pedestrian committee or a freight advisory committee. MPO staff  assist the MPO board by preparing documents, fostering interagency  coordination, facilitating public input and feedback, and managing the  planning process. Staff may also provide committees with technical  assessments and evaluations of proposed transportation initiatives.  Created to carry out a federally mandated transportation planning process,  MPOs’ core membership is spelled out in law, but the organizational  structure and staff arrangements were designed to be determined by  agreement between local officials and the state.
The size of the populations represented by individual MPOs varies. For  instance, about 52 percent of the 381 MPOs represent populations of fewer  than 200,000 people; 36 percent of MPOs represent populations of 200,000  to 999,999 people; and 11 percent of MPOs represent populations of 1  million or more people. However, the largest MPOs—those representing  more than 1 million people—represent about 49 percent of the country.  (See figure 1 for a summary of MPO sizes.)
All MPOs have the same basic planning requirements. Specifically, all  MPOs are required to produce the following:  long-range (20-year) transportation plans;   short-range (4-year) Transportation Improvement Programs;    annual statements of planning priorities and activities (generally called a  Unified Planning Work Program or UPWP); and    public participation plans.
Transportation improvement programs (TIP), based on the long-range  plan, should be designed to achieve the area’s transportation goals using  spending, operating, management, and financial tools. The area’s  transportation goals are determined by the MPO’s policy board, including  representatives from relevant jurisdictions and transportation operators,  through interactions between stakeholders and the public for the purpose  of identifying visions for the community’s future. This process allows the  region as a whole to determine how it should allocate its limited  transportation resources among the various capital and operating needs of  the area, based on local and regional priorities. Both the TIP and the long- range plan must be fiscally constrained—that is, the total estimated cost of  the planned transportation improvements cannot exceed anticipated levels  of funding. MPOs must develop these plans and programs in cooperation  with their state department of transportation as well as local transit  operators, land-use entities, and environmental resource agencies. Where  they exist in their region, MPOs also consult with tribal governments,  airports, Amtrak, or freight rail interests during the planning process. (See  figure 2 for a summary of the role of the MPO, state, and federal  government in developing the long-range plan and TIP.)
Beyond the requirements common to all MPOs, some MPOs have  additional planning requirements. For example, MPOs serving urbanized  areas with populations of over 200,000 people, which are referred to as  transportation management areas (TMA), are required to develop a  Congestion Management Process (CMP) that identifies actions and  strategies to reduce congestion. In addition, MPOs containing areas that  do not conform to federal air quality standards (i.e., nonattainment areas)  or areas that have recently come into conformance with the standards  (i.e., maintenance areas) are required to ensure that planned  transportation improvements will not cause new air quality violations,  worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the standards. To  ensure that such plans will not negatively affect regional air quality, MPOs  must conduct what is termed “conformity analysis” for proposed  transportation improvements.
To create these transportation plans and programs, MPOs consider a  variety of factors, including local travel forecasts and federal  considerations. For example, MPOs forecast future travel with the  assistance of computerized travel-demand models. These models provide  information on how urban growth and proposed facility and operational  investments will affect the operation of the transportation system. Such  models are complex and require as inputs extensive current information  on roadway and transit system characteristics and operations, as well as  current and forecast demographic information. Creating and operating the  models requires a high degree of technical training and expertise.  Additionally, when developing these plans and programs, MPOs must  consider specific statutorily defined planning factors. These factors  require that the metropolitan planning process provide for consideration  of projects and strategies that will    support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by  enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency; increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and  nonmotorized users; increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and  nonmotorized users; increase the accessibility and mobility of people and freight;   protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation,  improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between  transportation improvements and state and local planned growth and  economic development patterns;   enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system,  across and between modes, for people and freight;   promote efficient system management and operation; and    emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.
To carry out this regional planning process, 1.25 percent of federal-aid  highway funding from the Interstate Maintenance, National Highway  System, Bridge, Surface Transportation Program, and Congestion  Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) programs is apportioned to the states  as metropolitan planning funds.
Federal legislation has maintained, and periodically increased, the funding  for MPO activities over time. (See figure 3.) These federal funds are  distributed to states based on population. Generally states then provide  each of their MPOs with baseline funding and distribute any remaining  balance according to a formula. While the states can use a range of factors  in their formulas, such as congestion levels, they are required to take  population into account. Federal planning dollars must also be matched by  state and local governments. Specifically, state and local governments  must provide at least 20 percent of metropolitan planning funds, although  some state and local governments have to provide more than 20 percent in  funding to perform all of their necessary planning activities.
Federal and state governments oversee this regional planning process. At  the federal level, FTA and FHWA work together to perform federal  certification reviews—certifying that each TMA has carried out its  planning according to the applicable federal statutes. More specifically,  the certification review requires that the federal government assess TMAs  every 4 years to determine how well they are working with the  transportation-related organizations, local governments, public  transportation operators, and citizens in their area, as well as with the  state departments of transportation, to meet the many statutory and  regulatory requirements applicable to the planning process. Additionally,  the certification review assesses the quality of the required planning  documents. The certification review includes a desk review of the MPO’s  plans and a site visit, among other things. Additionally, all MPOs, including  both TMAs and non-TMAs, must also self-certify that their planning  process meets the federal requirements. States also participate in the  regional planning process by, for example, reviewing and approving the  MPO’s TIP. If the state approves the TIP, the state must incorporate the  TIP, without change, into the statewide transportation improvement  program (STIP). If the state does not approve the TIP, the MPO and the  projects included in the TIP are not eligible for federal funding. This  requirement compels states to coordinate with MPOs and vice versa.
section_title: MPOs Vary Considerably in Terms of Capacity, Responsibilities, and Range of Activities
subsections: section_title: The Staffing, Financial, and Technical Capacity of MPOs Varies Significantly
paragraphs: The staff size and structure of MPOs vary significantly. Some MPOs are  supported by one or two staff, while a few have over 100 full or part-time  staff. Most MPOs have a relatively small staff, with a median of four full- time staff per MPO, based on our survey. (See table 1 for a summary of the  number of staff by size of MPO.) The type and structure of the  organizations housing MPOs also vary across the country. The structure of  an MPO is determined by agreement between relevant local governments  and the state, and therefore the extent to which these local governments  or other regional organizations support MPO activities varies. These  organizations can support MPOs by housing staff within their organization,  which can include providing the personnel and facilities necessary for  MPO activities. Some MPOs are housed and staffed by a local jurisdiction  (such as a city or county government) within its boundaries, others by a  regional planning council, and still others operate independently.  According to our survey respondents, 71 percent of MPOs are a part of  agencies such as regional councils and city, county, or state governments.  Eighteen percent of MPOs report that they operate independently.
Beyond their staff and structure, MPOs also vary in terms of their funding  sources and amounts. Federal planning funds—FHWA PL funds and FTA  Section 5303 funds—generally make up a large portion of the MPO budget  for conducting necessary studies and developing transportation plans,  programs, and other documents. According to our survey respondents,  about 80 percent of MPOs receive a majority of their planning funds from  these federal sources. The amount of matching funds provided by state  and local sources also varies considerably by MPO. For example, officials  from one state department of transportation we spoke to said that the  small MPOs receive considerably more than the required 20 percent of  state and local matching funds for transportation planning. Officials from  another state told us that although they only receive the required 20  percent match, they also provide technical support to some MPOs. In  addition to federal planning funds and the required state and local match,  some MPOs receive and use other funds, such as dedicated local taxes and  transit fare box revenue. Finally, according to FTA, while most federal  transit funds designated for urban areas are apportioned directly from  FTA to the transit operator, some funds are apportioned to MPOs, which  then allocate those funds themselves.
The technical capacity of MPOs to develop travel demand forecasts—a  crucial component of the long-range plans—also varies. Some MPOs— about 45 percent of all our survey respondents—use their own models to  develop most, if not all, of their forecasts, while 51 percent rely on  consultants or their state department of transportation to conduct their  modeling. Small MPOs are less likely to conduct their own travel demand  forecasts, with only 30 percent reporting that they have their own  modeling, according to our survey. Further, the federal government gives  local transportation planning agencies, including MPOs, the flexibility to  choose their own transportation models without being subject to  minimum standards or guidelines. As a result, the type of model used by  MPOs also varies. Of the MPOs that reported in our survey that they use a  model to conduct their travel demand forecasts, a large majority said that  they use a four-step model, which uses survey and other data to estimate  future trips and assign those trips to different modes. Seven survey  respondents indicated that they use activity-based models, which are tied  more closely to household and traveler characteristics and behavior and  therefore should, in concept, permit MPOs to address policy questions that  cannot be treated with the conventional four-step models. For example,  four-step models are not suited to estimating the emissions effects of small  transportation projects or linking these effects to air quality; more  advanced modeling techniques, such as activity-based models, are needed  to estimate such effects. The Transportation Research Board (TRB) also  noted that although the four-step process is common, there are  considerable variations in the completeness and complexity of the models  and data employed. Further, they reported that MPOs vary significantly  in the number of staff devoted to travel forecasting.
section_title: The Responsibilities and Activities of Some MPOs Have Expanded beyond Transportation Planning
paragraphs: Through our survey and interviews, we also found that many MPOs have  additional responsibilities that are not federally required, many of which  extend beyond transportation planning. For some MPOs, these additional  responsibilities and activities are required by their state, while other MPOs  have taken on these responsibilities over time, based on regional needs.
Land-use planning. According to our survey respondents, many MPOs  conduct all or a portion of their region’s land-use planning, and for some  this is a state requirement. Specifically, 70 percent of MPOs have some  land-use planning responsibilities, with the larger MPOs generally  reporting that they have more of these planning responsibilities than small  MPOs. Eleven percent of survey respondents specifically said that their  land-use responsibilities are required by their state. In practice, some  MPOs integrate land-use planning into their transportation planning  process by considering potential land-use scenarios along with proposed  projects. Some MPOs have also led public processes to develop an  integrated transportation and land-use “vision” for a region and to evaluate  future transportation and land-use scenarios. Similarly, for a number of  MPOs, various forms of land-use models are now part of the process for  analyzing the growth of the region and studying the land-use impacts of  alternative transportation investment programs. Generally, though, MPOs  do not have authority to make land-use decisions. Rather, local  jurisdictions typically have the authority to make such zoning and other  decisions.
Project selection. By determining which projects are to be included in  TIPs, all MPOs have a role in determining which projects will ultimately be  funded. However, only certain MPOs have the authority to select—from a  list of projects in an approved TIP—which projects are to be implemented  in the most immediate time frame, using federal funds available to a  metropolitan planning area. In areas designated as TMAs, the MPO, in  consultation with the state and public transportation operators, selects  from an approved TIP all projects that are to be implemented using  funding under Title 23 or under Chapter 53 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code  (excluding projects on the National Highway System and projects funded  under the Bridge, Interstate Maintenance, and Federal Lands Highway  programs). Furthermore, MPOs in air quality nonattainment areas also  have the ability to use CMAQ funds. Additionally, in California, regional  organizations have project selection authority for 75 percent of their  region’s portion of the state’s TIP funds (which includes both federal and  state highway money).
Project implementation. Some MPOs also have the responsibility for  implementing transportation projects. Generally, MPOs do not take the  lead in implementing transportation projects; rather, they play a  coordinating role in planning and programming funds for projects and  operations. Usually, local jurisdictions, transit operators, or state  governments take the lead in implementing projects. However, 37 percent  of survey respondents—representing MPOs of all sizes—said that they  implement projects. For example, one large MPO we spoke with utilizes its  local, state, and federal funds to implement projects by leveraging this  money with regional partners to construct large-scale transportation  projects. Toward this end, the MPO established a program aimed at  quickly reducing congestion in particular areas. This initiative uses small- scale projects, such as traffic signal optimization, for congested  corridors—which can be implemented within 2 years and are largely  funded and carried out by the MPO.
Transit operations. Sixteen percent of MPOs responded in our survey  that they have some responsibility for operating all or a portion of their  regional transit system. For example, one western MPO is both the transit  authority—providing mass transit that connects throughout the region— and the transportation-planning agency for the greater metropolitan area.  Another MPO noted in our survey that rather than operating the transit  system, it serves as the planning staff for both the region’s MPO and the  transit agency.
Environmental planning. Twenty-one percent of MPOs responding to  our survey said that they conduct air quality or emissions analysis, beyond  the federally required conformity process. Further, 32 percent of MPOs  responding to our survey said that they conduct additional environmental  or water quality planning. For example, one state we visited requires its  MPOs to consider how their long-range transportation plan increases  water and energy conservation and efficiency.
section_title: MPOs Face Resource, Authority, and Technical Challenges That Impact Their Ability to Conduct Transportation Planning
subsections: section_title: MPOs Report Funding and Staffing Limitations
paragraphs: MPOs we surveyed and interviewed cited several funding challenges that  impact their ability to conduct transportation planning. About 85 percent  of all MPOs responding to our survey cited the lack of transportation  planning funding as a challenge to transportation planning. MPOs we  surveyed and interviewed also cited challenges related to the lack of  flexibility of transportation planning funds. Specifically, about half of all  MPOs responding to our survey cited the lack of flexibility of funding as a  challenge. While FTA allows planning funds to be used for a broad range  of planning activities, FHWA is more prescriptive in how planning funds  can be spent. For example, FHWA guidance precludes using planning  funds for projects’ environmental analyses that definitively go beyond  transportation planning. Furthermore, officials at a few MPOs we spoke  with stated that it is unclear which activities can be undertaken with  planning funds, particularly in terms of the FHWA planning funds, and that  such definitions inhibit them from conducting comprehensive planning by  not allowing them to use transportation planning dollars for other uses  where necessary. DOT officials we spoke with agreed that the eligibility  for FHWA planning funds is fairly narrow, but noted that Surface  Transportation Program funds can be used for metropolitan planning and  are more flexible.
MPOs also cited a few other funding-related challenges. First, many MPOs  reported having difficulty securing local matching funds for federal  transportation planning dollars. About 66 percent of survey respondents  overall cited this as a challenge. For example, one MPO we spoke with has  been unable to utilize all of the federal planning funds it has been allocated  because the MPO cannot meet its local matching requirements. As a result,  the MPO has not been able to hire needed staff. Second, MPOs also had  mixed opinions regarding the fiscal constraint requirement—that MPOs  develop plans that correspond to reliable revenue projections. About 84  percent of survey respondents cited the fiscal constraint requirement as a  challenge. One MPO official told us that this is a challenge because the  MPO has to submit its TIP without full knowledge of the state’s available  funding; this makes creating a realistic fiscally constrained TIP difficult. A  previous GAO report found similar concerns. In particular, for MPOs in  some urban areas, financially constraining the transportation  improvement program meant abandoning proposed projects because of a  lack of projected revenue. Although developing a fiscally constrained  plan can be difficult, we have also previously reported that the fiscal  constraint requirement has been largely beneficial to the planning process  because it has led MPOs to obtain more reliable revenue projections from  state departments of transportation and transit agencies and to exclude  those projects that could not be financed within budget constraints. Third,  beyond funding challenges related to planning, officials at a few small  MPOs we spoke with often stated that their region had insufficient funding  to keep pace with the transportation projects needed. In fact, at one small  MPO, an official estimated that the region received about 10 percent of the  funding needed to construct necessary projects. This lack of funding could  potentially limit the effectiveness of MPO planning because fewer projects  from the TIP can be implemented.
MPOs also cited staffing constraints, to a lesser extent, as a challenge that  impacts their ability to conduct transportation planning. Some MPOs  stated that staffing affects their ability to fulfill its planning requirements.  For example, one small MPO told us that with only one or two staff  members, it is very difficult to satisfy all the federal requirements for  MPOs such as creating and updating the TIP and long-range plan and  holding public meetings. MPOs also mentioned a lack of trained staff as a  challenge to transportation planning. About half of the survey respondents  cited lack of trained staff as a challenge in carrying out the federal  requirements for transportation planning. Lack of trained staff is also a  challenge for small MPOs, according to our survey. For example, officials  from several MPOs stated that retaining staff trained to conduct the travel  forecasting is difficult because there are few people with the expertise to  conduct such technical analyses and consulting firms can often pay  modelers a higher salary than an MPO. In addition, officials from one MPO  told us that the challenges of having limited staff resources is compounded  by requirements to ensure public participation, noting that much of their  time is spent carrying out the public participation requirements for the  planning process relative to other activities. Concerns about meeting the  public participation requirements were consistent across most of the  MPOs we surveyed. In particular, 79 percent of survey respondents stated  that they have difficulty obtaining the public participation needed to meet  their transportation planning requirements. A few MPOs we interviewed  stated that it was difficult to generate public participation in the planning  process, in part because few people actually understand what an MPO is  or what it does.
Most MPOs function as part of another planning or governing body, such  as a council of governments. According to a few MPOs we interviewed,  this arrangement can address staffing and funding limitations by allowing  an MPO the ability to cut costs by sharing resources such as a space in  which to operate and, in some cases, facilitates coordination between the  MPO and other planners or transportation stakeholders. However, this  arrangement can also create some challenges. In particular, a few MPOs  housed within city governments or other entities connected with a specific  jurisdiction said that this arrangement causes them to be viewed as less  impartial than MPOs that are stand-alone entities, and that these  perceptions can affect their consensus-building efforts. Additionally, 71  percent of small MPO survey respondents cited competing priorities  between transportation planning and other tasks related to the council of  governments as a challenge.
section_title: Most MPOs Report That Limitations to Their Authority Presents Challenges
paragraphs: MPOs we surveyed and interviewed also cited the lack of authority as a  challenge to effective transportation planning. About 80 percent of all  MPOs responding to our survey indicated that the lack of authority to  implement the plans they develop is a challenge. The majority of MPOs  that responded to our survey do not implement any of the projects  contained in the plans that they create. Rather, they rely on other agents  such as cities, counties, and state departments of transportation to carry  out their plans. Similarly, although many survey respondents reported that  they conduct land-use planning for their region, MPOs generally lack the  authority to make land-use decisions. Instead, this authority generally  rests with state and local jurisdictions. As a result, MPOs indicated that  they have difficulty anticipating and integrating land-use decisions into  their transportation planning. For example, in one region we visited,  local jurisdictions are often reluctant to make land-use planning decisions  in-line with the MPO’s regional transportation plan. In part, the official  stated that this occurs because local jurisdictions have a difficult time  making land-use decisions that benefit the region as a whole as opposed to  their individual community. If land-use decisions do not correspond with  an MPO’s plans, the MPO’s proposed transportation improvements may  not be as effective. Our past work has documented that integrating land- use and transportation investments—including accurately modeling future  land-use changes—is important but challenging.
MPOs we interviewed also cited their lack of authority in determining  which projects will be implemented as a challenge. Although MPOs help  determine which projects are eligible for funding and which ones have  priority through the development of the TIP, whether a project will be  funded and the amount of funds made available for the project are  determined by federal, state, and local policymakers. Moreover, according  to our survey, the availability of funding and public support are more  important drivers of transportation investment decisions than the analysis  conducted by MPOs. This is consistent with our previous work regarding  transportation decision making, which indicated that even when economic  analyses are performed, the results are not necessarily the most important  factor considered in terms of which projects to fund; rather, a number of  factors, such as public support or the availability of funding, drive  transportation investment decisions.
Although MPOs in the survey cited lack of authority as a challenge, the  MPOs we interviewed had mixed opinions regarding the extent to which  they felt being granted additional authority would improve transportation  planning. Some of the MPOs we spoke with emphasized that having  project implementation and land-use decision-making authority would  improve transportation planning. For example, one large MPO told us that  although they have developed a close working relationship over the years  with transit operators and other transportation stakeholders to make their  planning processes successful, they need land-use authority to more  comprehensively address critical transportation issues. Another MPO we  interviewed, however, suggested that giving MPOs project implementation  or land-use authority may not improve transportation planning.  Specifically, one MPO official stated that such additional authorities may  actually hamper MPOs’ ability to conduct transportation planning, since  some of their current ability to generate consensus results from the fact  that they do not have a stake in building or operating the transportation  plans.
section_title: Lack of Technical Capacity Makes It Difficult for MPOs to Meet Increasingly Complex Requirements
paragraphs: MPOs also face technical challenges, in part because the travel demand  modeling required to forecast future growth and needs has become more  complicated. MPOs today face a much broader and more complex set of  requirements and needs in their travel modeling than they did in the 1960s  and 1970s, when the primary concern was evaluating highway and transit  system capacity expansions. New requirements—such as determining  motor vehicle emissions and changes in land use—have created additional  data needs to account for the increasing complexity of the transportation  system. For example, about half of our survey respondents indicated that  their MPOs include a nonattainment or maintenance area and, thus, are  required to conduct air quality conformity analyses. An even larger  percentage of medium- and large-sized MPOs—66 percent and 76 percent,  respectively—indicated that they have such areas within their MPO  boundaries. As planning organizations, much of the value of MPOs lies in  their ability to forecast and analyze an increasingly complex and growing  set of transportation needs. If MPOs’ technical capabilities cannot account  for the increasing complexities facing regional transportation systems,  MPOs’ contributions to transportation planning may be compromised,  which could lead to planning failures and poor investment decisions.
Although some MPOs are taking steps to meet the challenges presented by  the increasing complexity of the transportation system, MPOs still face  modeling challenges. About half of MPOs report that they face challenges  related to their limited modeling capacity. Some MPOs have had success  updating their travel forecasting techniques to accommodate new  requirements. For example, officials at one MPO told us the transit agency  in their region is developing a travel demand model specifically for transit,  though it has not yet been incorporated into the MPO’s travel models.  Some MPOs we interviewed, however, told us that they lack the resources  to improve their modeling capabilities. In fact, MPO officials expressed  concern in interviews that current models, including the four-step models  most MPOs use, do not necessarily produce forecasts that can adequately  account for the increasing complexities of transportation planning, such  as predicting future land-use patterns and transit’s effect on travel  behavior. TRB also found similar challenges—that is, they found inherent  weaknesses in current models that are generally unable to address new  policy concerns raised by the growing complexity of the transportation  system. TRB notes that when the detail required to address a  transportation issue increases, the complexity of the analytical techniques  should increase as well. For example, a small metropolitan area  experiencing minimal growth, with little transit and no air quality  problems, will likely be able to use a simple model to determine the area’s  needs. Thus no single approach is appropriate for all MPOs.
Although modeling presents challenges, according to our survey, the most  predominant technical challenge was related to acquiring quality data to  use in planning models. Over 70 percent of survey respondents cited data  limitations as a challenge. Data reflecting current travel patterns in a  metropolitan area are important because models that are supplied with  inaccurate or out-of-date data may produce inadequate forecasts that  contribute to poor planning. In addition, having robust data to support  proposed transportation plans helps to keep planning more objective and  lends credibility to the plans developed by MPOs. However, conducting a  household travel survey—a survey of random households in a  metropolitan area that gathers trip-related data, such as mode of  transportation, duration, distance and purpose of trip—to collect updated  data is both expensive and time-consuming. For example, officials at one  large MPO we interviewed stated that they need to update their household  survey but are having difficulty finding the estimated $1.5 million needed  to do so. As we mentioned earlier, funding shortages and the lack of staff  trained with such technical expertise make increasing technical capacity a  challenge for many MPOs, particularly small ones. TRB’s study also found  that many MPOs had inadequate data to support their modeling processes.
section_title: The Extent to Which MPO Oversight Mechanisms Improve Transportation Planning Is Unclear
paragraphs: The federal certification review is an important mechanism that FTA and  FHWA use to oversee the MPO planning process. Although all MPOs are  required to self-certify that they have met the federal transportation  planning requirements, SAFETEA-LU also requires DOT to certify the  metropolitan planning process of the 155 TMAs every 4 years. To conduct  a certification review, FTA and FHWA assemble a team which typically  consists of FTA and FHWA field staff, but may also include FHWA or FTA  headquarters community planners, EPA officials, other subject matter  experts, or experts from DOT’s Volpe National Transportation Systems  Center. FHWA division office personnel generally take the lead in these  reviews, which typically take 6 to 9 months and include (1) an initial desk  review, which includes verifying compliance with basic regulatory  requirements, among other things; (2) an evaluation of the MPO’s written  response to a series of questions; (3) a 2 to 4 day site visit during which the  team gathers additional information; and (4) a meeting to inform the  public about planning requirements and provide an opportunity for the  public to express concerns about how the process is meeting the needs of  the area. After the site visit, the team prepares a final report including  review findings and recommendations, which incorporates public  comments on the planning process.
Consistent with federal law, the federal certification review is process-  oriented and conducted without regard to transportation planning  outcomes. Specifically, through certification reviews, DOT ensures that  the metropolitan planning process of an MPO serving a TMA is carried out  in accordance with applicable provisions of federal law—for example, by  ascertaining whether or not the MPO has adhered to its public  participation plan. Oversight also provides a mechanism through which  the federal government can ensure that its funds are being used to achieve  its intended goals. The current process-oriented approach toward  certification generally focuses on procedural requirements as opposed to  performance. FTA and FHWA can withhold apportioned federal highway  and transit funds if they determine an MPO is in noncompliance with  federal requirements. However, FTA and FHWA officials were unaware of  any instance in which an MPO was not certified due to noncompliance  during the last 10 years. Furthermore, FTA and FHWA officials noted that  the process is meant to be collaborative in nature. Therefore, a finding of  noncompliance is as much of a failure on the part of DOT as the MPO,  according to a DOT official.
Because the federal certification is focused on compliance, not outcomes,  it is difficult to determine whether federal oversight is improving  transportation planning. GAO has previously recommended to DOT, as  well as to Congress, that adopting performance measures and goals for  programs can aid in evaluating and measuring the success of the  programs, which can lead to better decisions about transportation  investments. The procedural focus of the federal certification, and the  fact that, according to DOT officials’ knowledge, no MPO has failed to be  certified as a result of a certification review also makes it difficult to use  the certification results as a performance indicator for MPOs. According to  FHWA and FTA officials, certification reviews examine the quality of the  MPO planning process by, for example, identifying corrective actions  where there is noncompliance with statute or regulations and  recommendations for areas needing improvement. Corrective actions are  set with milestone dates to rectify the noncompliance and require a status  report and re-evaluation of the process. Commendations for the use of  noteworthy practices are also identified. However, FTA and FHWA do not  assess the progress of the MPO in achieving the goals outlined in the plans.  According to FTA and FHWA officials, states may, but are not required to,  monitor the progress of MPOs in meeting their goals. Furthermore, an  FHWA official noted that the elements that are reviewed through  certification serve as proxies for good planning—for example, the  resulting plans will be better if the MPO is regularly soliciting and  incorporating public input.
Most MPOs we interviewed generally view the federal certification reviews  as pro forma in nature and place a greater value on informal assistance  from the federal government. Officials in one state said that the most  important oversight is the “give and take” between agencies on the various  transportation plans they create. This informal interaction allows the  oversight agencies to identify issues prior to the formal reviews. Likewise,  many federal officials with whom we spoke view informal interactions— such as regular meetings, technical assistance, and review of air quality  conformity analyses—as an important aspect of oversight. One FHWA  division official we interviewed stated that the benefit of ongoing  communication is that problems are identified as they arise and can be  addressed well before the certification review or self certification is  conducted.
MPOs also reported that the assistance provided by their states is more  important than the federal certification reviews. Although the level of  participation of states in the planning process varies, MPOs reported in  our survey that state department of transportation officials generally play  a greater oversight role than DOT for certain activities. For example,  around 80 percent of survey respondents reported that state department of  transportation officials are involved in MPO boards and committees, while  over 55 percent and 70 percent reported similar participation from federal  officials on MPO boards and committees, respectively. This may be due, in  part, to the limited number of staff at FHWA and FTA.
section_title: MPO, Government, and Industry Officials Have Developed Options to Enhance Transportation Planning
paragraphs: With the pending expiration of the current surface transportation  authorizing legislation, MPO, government, and industry officials have  developed various formal and informal proposals to improve or change the  current transportation planning process. We reviewed proposals from  AMPO, AASHTO, APTA, the Brookings Institution, the previous and  current DOT administrations, and the June 2009 House Transportation and  Infrastructure Committee blueprint for the surface transportation  reauthorization. We also discussed suggestions for improving  transportation planning with MPO, federal, and state officials. In reviewing  these proposals or suggestions, we identified several recurring changes, or  options, that could address some of the resource, authority, and technical  challenges facing MPOs. Most of the options have both advantages and  disadvantages, and implementing any of the options will require policy  trade-offs.
subsections: section_title: Increasing Flexibility in Use of Federal Funds
paragraphs: Creating an expanded or clarified definition of eligibility for the use of  transportation planning funds could allow MPOs to utilize planning funds  in ways that best meet the needs of the area. Most of the MPOs we  surveyed and many of the MPOs we interviewed suggested that having  additional flexibility regarding the types of activities that are eligible to be  completed using planning funds would improve the planning process.  Currently, FHWA guidance precludes using planning funds for projects’  environmental analyses that “clearly extends beyond transportation  planning.” As we mentioned previously, officials at a few MPOs we spoke  with stated that they are unclear about what environmental activities are  eligible under that definition, which makes it difficult to conduct  comprehensive transportation planning. According to many of the MPOs  we interviewed and 90 percent of the MPOs responding to our survey,  creating more flexibility in how the planning funds can be spent would  improve the effectiveness of the planning process and allow MPOs to be  more efficient by prioritizing their limited resources to the most critical  planning activities. However, providing such flexibility in federal  transportation funds could result in less transparency and accountability.  In particular, when funds can be flexed across different activities, there is  less ability to assess the impact of particular funding streams—such as  transportation planning funds—on the achievement of key goals.
section_title: Creating Greater Variation in Planning Requirements
paragraphs: A number of the proposals for improving the MPO planning process  include creating further variation—in addition to the TMA and non-TMA  distinction—in MPOs’ planning requirements and authority to account for  the wide variation in capacity of MPOs across the country. For example,  creating additional variations in MPOs’ planning requirements could  include the development of abbreviated planning requirements for MPOs.  SAFETEA-LU allows that the Secretary of Transportation may permit  MPOs that are not designated as TMAs or are not in nonattainment for  ozone or carbon monoxide to develop abbreviated metropolitan  transportation plans or TIPs. In so doing, the Secretary must take into  account the complexity of transportation problems in the area. MPOs in  small metropolitan areas—where transportation needs are often less  complex—could benefit from abbreviated planning requirements. To date,  no MPOs have applied for the abbreviated planning requirements,  according to DOT officials.
Other proposals suggest that MPOs that have exhibited increased  capacity—e.g., those that are conducting additional activities beyond the  current planning requirements—could be allowed additional  implementation authority to oversee the development of certain projects.  Likewise, an MPO could be granted expanded authority to plan and fund a  metropolitan area’s transportation projects—focusing available  transportation funds on projects that will benefit a region the most,  regardless of mode. A large majority of the survey respondents—79  percent—stated that additional project implementation authority would  improve effectiveness of the MPO planning process.
However, granting additional authorities to MPOs or reducing the  requirements could result in some additional challenges for MPOs and  DOT. Additional federal and state oversight may be needed for (1) MPOs  that take on new, traditionally non-MPO responsibilities, such as project  implementation or (2) MPOs that reduce their planning requirements in  order to ensure that the abbreviated process adequately accounts for the  transportation needs of the area. Additionally, over half of the survey  respondents reported that they do not have the capacity to undertake  additional project implementation authorities, despite the fact that a large  majority of MPOs stated increased implementation authority would  improve the effectiveness of their planning process.
Other proposals include changing the legal definition of MPOs to realign  the MPO planning process with current capacity and planning needs. In  particular, one option calls for an increase in the population threshold for  mandatory MPO creation. Requiring the formation of MPOs at a larger  population threshold could ease the burden of the previously mentioned  resource constraints affecting small MPOs, including funding and staffing  shortages. Specifically, one of the state departments of transportation we  interviewed—one that contains more rural areas—noted that the current  population threshold of 50,000 can create a situation in which a relatively  small, rural area with less complex transportation needs is given MPO  responsibilities. In these situations, MPOs may have difficulty funding an  adequate number of positions—or filling them with qualified individuals— to do the work needed to meet federal and state requirements. Raising the  population threshold could raise the likelihood that MPO efforts are  limited to urban areas with more advanced transportation needs.  However, about 73 percent of survey respondents from small MPOs  reported that raising the threshold would not be an appropriate way to  improve the planning process. An official from a small MPO we  interviewed noted that any reduction in responsibilities for small MPOs  must be a contextual decision based on the complexity of the  transportation needs in the area, such as proximity to a large metropolitan  area that is expected to grow in the future.
section_title: Increasing Federal Investment in Modeling Efforts
paragraphs: With regard to technical constraints, improving technical capabilities  across MPOs will likely require additional investment in modeling, data  gathering, or both. As noted previously, current models are not well suited  to representing travelers’ responses to the complex range of policies such  as freight movement and motor vehicle emissions. Of particular concern is  that many MPOs have inadequate data to support their modeling  processes, even for traditional travel demand forecasts. Eighty-seven  percent of MPOs surveyed said that greater federal support for  transportation research and data would improve their effectiveness.  Moreover, many of the MPOs we interviewed agreed that federal  government investment in modeling and data gathering is necessary to  ensure greater reliability in travel demand forecasting across MPOs and to  help account for the increasing complexity of transportation forecasting  and data needs in urban areas. Furthermore, without such an investment,  policymakers may lack the information needed to make informed  decisions on investments related to the transportation system.
Toward this end, TRB’s Special Report 288 recommended the  development and implementation of new modeling approaches to travel  demand forecasting that are better suited to providing reliable  information. These new modeling approaches include such applications as  multimodal investment analyses, environmental assessments, evaluations  of a wide range of policy alternatives, and meeting federal and state  regulatory requirements. TRB also made various recommendations for  improvements, including increasing DOT support and funding for  incremental improvements to models in settings appropriate for their use,  and the continued development, demonstration, and implementation of  advanced modeling approaches. Additionally, TRB encouraged DOT  collaboration with MPOs and states to examine data collection needs,  including data requirements for validating current travel forecasting  models and meeting regulatory requirements. Most recently, in July 2009,  when DOT announced its principles for an 18-month extension of federal  highway, transit, and highway and trucking safety programs, it called for  an investment of $300 million to build state and MPO planning capacity for  the collection and analysis of data on transportation goals. Additionally,  DOT’s 18-month extension proposal suggests an investment of $10 million  to build MPOs’ informational and analytic capacity to refine assessment  tools at the federal level, among other things.
section_title: Making the Planning Process More Performance-Based
paragraphs: Currently there are no requirements to attain explicit performance  thresholds, such as reducing congestion or improving highway safety, built  into the federal planning requirements for MPOs. MPOs and industry  representatives we interviewed recognized the value of making the  planning process more performance-based, noting that focusing on  outcomes could improve transportation investment decision making. In  addition, DOT’s recently released principles for an 18-month extension of  certain federal surface transportation programs also calls for stronger  requirements for tracking and reporting on the projected and actual  outcomes of transportation investments that use federal dollars. Using  performance measures could help hold MPOs accountable for carrying out  a 3-C transportation planning process that encourages and promotes a safe  and efficient surface transportation system. According to our survey, most  MPOs already report using performance measures to some extent to  assess results achieved. However, MPOs generally reported using output- based measures, such as compliance with state and federal transportation  planning rules, rather than outcome-based measures, such as improved  safety. Further, some DOT officials we spoke with maintained that the  wide variety of needs and capacities among regions would make it difficult  to establish national performance measures. To overcome the challenge of  creating such measures for all MPOs, some officials said that broader  performance goals could be established at the national level, while more  specific measures and targets could be left for states and regions to  establish.
Establishing outcome-based measures for all MPOs would also require  DOT to expand its oversight so that it can assess the progress of MPOs in  achieving specific results, rather than focusing on compliance with  existing statutes and rules. However, a few MPOs and the DOT officials we  spoke to noted that it would not be appropriate to hold MPOs accountable  for specific outcomes because they do not have the authority to implement  their plans. Indeed, it is often up to local jurisdictions and the state to  carry out MPO plans, and they do not always have the same priorities and  goals as the MPOs. Some MPO stakeholders we spoke to noted that  reconciling the needs of the region with the priorities of individual  jurisdictions is a significant challenge. Nevertheless, other officials we  spoke to noted that the purpose of MPOs is to establish a consensus on a  region’s long-term transportation goals and that it would be appropriate to  link those goals with specific outcomes.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Our survey shows a pattern of variations and challenges that could  increasingly compromise the quality of regional transportation planning,  potentially allowing transportation problems—such as increasing  congestion—to inhibit economic activity in the United States. For  example:    MPOs’ roles and responsibilities are not commensurate with their  requirements. Under the current system, a small MPO with a simple  transportation mission and limited technical capacity is generally  accountable to the same planning and program requirements and oversight  as a large MPO with a complex, multimodal transportation system, raising  questions as to whether the federal government is appropriately targeting  its oversight resources. SAFETEA-LU allows MPOs to seek permission to  use a more abbreviated planning process. MPOs may not be universally  aware of this option since, to date, no MPOs have utilized it.
The quality of MPOs’ computerized travel demand models and the data  used to support the process is often insufficient or unreliable. As planning  organizations, one of the important functions of MPOs is the ability to  forecast and analyze an increasingly complex and growing set of  environmental, transportation, and social trends. Thus if MPOs are not  able to keep pace with the increasing complexity of this task, their  contribution to transportation planning may be compromised. However,  on a cautionary note, effective forecasting requires both quality computer  models and accurate data, such that investing in one without improving  the other may waste resources. DOT’s July 2009 18-month extension  proposal calls for additional resources for the collection and analysis of  data on transportation goals to help build transportation planning  capacity. Adopting TRB’s modeling and data gathering recommendations  is an example of how the additional resources could be invested.
Finally, because the oversight mechanisms for MPOs are focused on  process, rather than outcomes, it is unclear what impact regional  transportation planning is having on transportation outcomes. Despite  over 30 years of a federally mandated and funded transportation planning  process and billions spent on roads, bridges, and transit projects, there is  not enough information for policymakers to determine whether the  planning process is addressing critical transportation challenges facing the  United States. However, shifting to a more performance-based oversight  approach will require legislative changes.
Addressing these variations and challenges is particularly important given  some proposed reforms that would increase the ability of metropolitan  and local governments to access additional federal transportation funds.  The upcoming reauthorization of federal surface transportation programs  provides Congress and DOT an opportunity to address these challenges  and enhance regional transportation planning. For example, Congress and  DOT could examine what is being invested in the federal oversight  process, what the return for this investment is, and how it may be  improved.
section_title: Matter for Congressional Consideration
paragraphs: Congress should consider making MPO transportation planning more  performance-based—for example, by identifying specific transportation  outcomes for transportation planning and charging the U.S. Department of  Transportation with assessing MPOs’ progress in achieving these  outcomes in the certification review process.
section_title: Recommendations
paragraphs: To improve the transportation planning process, we are recommending  that the Secretary of Transportation take the following two actions:  1.  Direct the Administrators of the Federal Highway Administration and  the Federal Transit Administration to establish guidelines for MPOs to  apply for, and implement, the abbreviated planning clause for small  MPOs, and share these guidelines with existing MPOs. 2.  Develop a strategy to improve data gathering and modeling efforts  among MPOs, including establishing a timeline for implementing the  modeling and data recommendations for the federal government in the  Transportation Research Board’s Special Report 288.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOT for review and comment. DOT  agreed to consider the report’s recommendations. DOT also provided  technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional  committees and the Secretary of Transportation. In addition, this report  will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  at (202) 512-2834 or herrp@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix II.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To identify and assess the characteristics and responsibilities of  metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) we reviewed current and  previous federal statutes and regulations governing MPOs. We also  reviewed relevant academic, industry association, GAO, and U.S.  Department of Transportation (DOT) research and publications to  understand MPOs’ transportation planning responsibilities, the ways MPOs  vary, and the challenges MPOs face in carrying out their responsibilities.  Additionally, we interviewed representatives from industry associations,  as well as MPO, Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Federal Highway  Administration (FHWA), and DOT officials to clarify MPO planning  responsibilities, identify transportation planning challenges, and assess  how DOT provides oversight for MPOs and the extent to which this  improves transportation planning. To further examine the role of state  departments of transportation in metropolitan planning and assess the  potential impact of various changes to MPOs, we contacted 11 additional  state departments of transportation by e-mail and received responses from  6. We also attended and observed a DOT on-site certification review in  Savannah, Georgia, to further understand the federal oversight of  transportation management areas (TMA).
To determine the various options for improving regional transportation  planning, we reviewed federal surface transportation program  reauthorization proposals from the Association of Metropolitan Planning  Organizations (AMPO), American Association of State Highway and  Transportation officials, American Public Transportation Association,  Brookings Institution, the previous and current DOT administrations, and  the current House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee blueprint  for reauthorization. We also discussed informal proposals or suggestions  for improving the planning process with MPO, federal, and state officials.
To gather in-depth information on the roles and responsibilities of MPOs,  the extent to which federal oversight improves transportation planning,  and possible ways to improve regional transportation planning, we  conducted a Web-based survey of all 381 MPOs. This survey was  conducted from February 3 to April 1, 2009. To prepare the questionnaire,  we pretested potential questions with MPOs of different sizes and from  different FTA regions to ensure that (1) the questions and possible  responses were clear and thorough, (2) terminology was used correctly,  (3) questions did not place an undue burden on the respondents, (4) the  information was feasible to obtain, and (5) the questionnaire was  comprehensive and unbiased. On the basis of feedback from the seven  pretests we conducted, we made changes to the content and format of  some survey questions. The results of our survey can be found at  GAO-09-867SP.
To identify MPOs to survey, we obtained MPO contact information from  DOT and AMPO; any inconsistencies between the two lists were  reconciled with phone calls to the relevant MPO. We also contacted all of  the MPOs in advance, by e-mail, to ensure that we had identified the  correct respondents and to request their completion of the questionnaire.  After the survey had been available for 2 weeks, and again after 4 and 6  weeks, we used e-mail and telephone calls to contact MPOs who had not  completed their questionnaires. Using these procedures, we obtained an  86 percent response rate. Because this was not a sample survey, there are  no sampling errors. However, the practical difficulties of conducting any  survey may introduce errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors.  For example, difficulties in how a particular question is interpreted, in the  sources of information that are available to respondents, or in how the  data are entered into a database or were analyzed can introduce unwanted  variability into the survey results. We took steps in the development of the  questionnaire, the data collection, and the data analysis to minimize these  nonsampling errors. For instance, a survey specialist designed the  questionnaire in collaboration with GAO staff who have subject-matter  expertise. Further, the draft questionnaire was pretested with a number of  MPOs to ensure that the questions were relevant, clearly stated, and easy  to comprehend. When the data were analyzed, a second, independent  analyst checked all computer programs. Finally, nonresponding MPOs  were distributed among different states and sizes of MPOs in a way that  did not show evidence of bias.
To gather additional information on the roles and responsibilities of MPOs,  the extent to which federal oversight improves transportation planning,  and possible ways to improve regional transportation planning, we  conducted case studies in eight metropolitan areas. Each case study  involved interviews with the designated MPO for that metropolitan area,  as well as the state department of transportation, transit operators, and  other relevant regional organizations. We selected MPOs to visit and  examine based on the following criteria:    population (based on whether or not the MPO is in a designated TMA);  location (based on the FTA region);   air quality (based on whether the MPO is located in an air quality    structure of the MPO (based on whether the MPO is an independent  agency or housed within another organization or jurisdiction); and recommendations from internal stakeholders, experts, associations, and  federal DOT officials we consulted.
Although using these criteria allowed us, in our view, to obtain  information from a diverse mix of MPOs, the findings from our case  studies cannot be generalized to all MPOs because they were selected as  part of a nonprobability sample. Table 2 lists the region and relevant  MPOs where we conducted case studies.
section_title: Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, A. Nicole Clowers, Acting  Director; Kyle Browning; F. Chase Cook; Kathleen Gilhooly; Cathy Hurley;  Stu Kaufman; Sara Ann Moessbaeur; Josh Ormond; Stephanie Purcell; Amy  Rosewarne; Jay Smale; and Susan Zimmerman made key contributions to  this report.