Establishing an MPO Boundary: the MSA vs. UZA Standard


Published on

This paper was presented at the 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. It discusses the merits of using the Metropolitan Statistical Area instead of the Urbanized Area to establish the planning area boundary of an MPO.

Published in: Technology, Economy & Finance
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Establishing an MPO Boundary: the MSA vs. UZA Standard

  1. 1. Alexander Bond    1  1  The Merits of Using Metropolitan Statistical Areas to Delineate 2  Metropolitan Planning Organization Boundaries 3  4  5  6  Submission Date: 11/5/2009 7  8  Word Count: 6,649 (4,899 in text, 1 table, 6 figures) 9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Corresponding Author: 16  Alexander Bond, AICP 17  Center for Urban Transportation Research 18  University of South Florida 19  4202 E. Fowler Ave, CUT 100 20  Tampa, FL 33620-5375 21  (813) 974-9779 22  Fax: (813) 974-5168 23 24 
  2. 2. Alexander Bond    2  1  ABSTRACT 2  Since their inception in the 1970s, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) have been organized 3  around a geographic unit called an urbanized area (UZA). The complexity of MPO planning duties and 4  the makeup of metropolitan areas have increased over the past four decades. Also, a new delineation of 5  urbanity— the metropolitan statistical area (MSA) — has emerged since MPOs were first created. The 6  paper defines the geography and history associated with MPO designation, and presents evidence that the 7  MSA should replace the UZA as the standard for delineating an MPO’s boundary. Major arguments in 8  favor of the MSA standard include matching MPO boundaries to those of local and regional governments, 9  coordination of data, alignment with air quality conformity airsheds, and improved integration of land use 10  with transportation infrastructure. The paper also analyzes the number and size of MPOs that would be 11  created under an MSA standard. Current trends toward voluntary migration to the MSA standard are also 12  documented. Several policy recommendations are made, which may be useful to policy-makers and MPO 13  leadership. 14 
  3. 3. Alexander Bond    3  1  INTRODUCTION 2  Since their inception in the 1970s, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) have been organized 3  around a geographic unit identified by the United States Census Bureau called an urbanized area (UZA). 4  New MPOs are designated for UZAs identified during each decennial (10-year) census. In addition, 5  existing MPO boundaries are changed when their constituent UZA boundaries are altered by the Census 6  results every ten years. 7  The complexity of MPO policy and planning duties has increased over the past four decades, and 8  so has the makeup of a metropolitan region. Meanwhile, the Office of Management and Budget has 9  created a new delineation of urban organization— the metropolitan statistical area (MSA). Perhaps it is 10  time to reexamine the geographic basis for designating MPOs, in particular the relative advantages of the 11  MSA over the UZA. With the pending expiration of SAFETEA-LU and an upcoming Census, this is an 12  excellent time to debate the merits of using the UZA versus the MSA to define metropolitan regions that 13  require the cooperative, comprehensive, and continuing (3-C) transportation planning process. This 14  paper presents evidence that MSAs should become the standard for designation of an MPO. 15  16  BACKGROUND 17  In order to discuss the relative advantages of each MPO designation standard, it is important to 18  understand the definitions being used. The UZA is developed by the US Census Bureau based on 19  information collected during each census. The MSA is produced by the Office of Management and 20  Budget (OMB), using information taken from the census and blended with information from other 21  sources, primarily the Department of Labor. The primary purpose of both geographies is to provide 22  statistical information for use by government agencies. A secondary purpose is to serve as the basis for 23  distribution of program funds that use a formula. A wide array of federal, state, and local executive 24  agencies use these urban definitions and delineations to allocate funding and implement regulations. 25  26  Urbanized Area 27  A UZA is a compact area that is entirely urban in character, defined as a contiguous area with more than 28  50,000 people and with a population density greater than 1,000 persons per square mile. The area that 29  meets the density definition is included in the boundary of the UZA, regardless of political boundaries. 30  The “building block” of a UZA is the census block group, which can be as small as one acre. Because the 31  level of analysis is so small, UZAs are often irregular in shape. Further, UZAs pay no attention to 32  political boundaries. Two UZAs cannot share a border, because such a condition would result in a single 33  contiguous geographic unit. According to the 2000 Census, there are 484 UZAs in the United States, 34  which cover just over 2% of the nation’s land area (1). The UZAs currently established in the United 35  States are shown in Figure 1.
  4. 4. Alexander Bond    4  1  2  FIGURE 1 Urbanized Areas in the United States- 2000. 3  4  Metropolitan Statistical Areas 5  Metropolitan statistical areas have a more complex definition. Counties serve as the “building blocks” of 6  MSAs. In order to be designated an MSA, the region must have at least one UZA to serve as the core of 7  the MSA (2). The county that contains the UZA is called the “core county” of the MSA. Additional 8  “outlying counties” that have high degrees of economic or social integration with the core are added to 9  the MSA. Outlying counties qualify for inclusion in the MSA if a) more than 25% of the employed 10  residents commute to the core county; or b) more than 25% of the jobs in the outlying county are held by 11  residents of the core county (3). The boundary of an MSA is coterminous with the county boundaries that 12  qualify for inclusion. Therefore, it is common for land area that is rural in appearance and character to be 13  included in the MSA. Two MSAs can share a border. MSAs can become quite large in land area—the 14  Atlanta MSA currently encompasses 28 counties. Most, however, encompass only one county. In New 15  England, the term ‘New England City and Town Area’ (NECTA) is substituted for MSA because 16  townships are the predominant local government type in those states. Figure 2 shows the 362 existing 17  MSAs in the United States. 18  The Office of Management and Budget–which is a part of the Executive Office of the President– 19  is responsible for defining, creating, and modifying MSAs. The OMB issues annual updates to the list of 20  MSAs, but does not create new ones until after each Census (4).
  5. 5. Alexander Bond    5  1  2  FIGURE 2 Map of Metropolitan Statistical Areas- 2000. 3  4  MSA and UZA History 5  It is important to understand the history of how and when each geography was developed. The Seventh 6  Census (1850) was the first to allow regional administrators to delineate and collect data in geographies 7  smaller than the state level. This was the first data collection effort that laid the framework for 8  identifying urbanity, and data were amalgamated for some major municipalities and counties. The Ninth 9  Census in 1870 was the first to identify urbanized areas as distinct units free from political boundaries. 10  Over the next century, collection techniques were repeatedly improved upon, and definitions have 11  changed. Although the Census Bureau has reported “urbanized areas” for over 150 years, it has used the 12  modern definition since the Sixteenth Census in 1940 (5). 13  The concept of a metropolitan statistical area was first defined by the Office of Management and 14  Budget (OMB) in 1951 and has been modified six times since, most recently in 2003. The MSA took 15  almost two decades to reach its modern definition, and did not gain wide acceptance until the 1980s (6). 16  MPOs were created by the 1973 Federal Aid Highway Act. In 1973, the MSA was not a well- 17  recognized or well-developed concept. The UZA, however, had been in common use for many decades. 18  The authors of the legislation designed MPOs to be situated around the only geographical representation 19  of urbanity available at that time—the UZA. Today, we have both the UZA and the MSA to choose from. 20  In order to visualize the difference between MSAs and UZAs, Figure 3 overlays the MSAs in 21  Florida with the UZAs in the state. Each MSA is shown with a different color, but the UZAs are shown 22  in uniform yellow.
  6. 6. Alexander Bond    6  1  2  FIGURE 3 MSAs and UZAs in Florida- 2008. 3  4  5  Metropolitan Planning Organizations 6  A Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is a regional transportation infrastructure planning agency. 7  The Federal government requires MPOs to perform transportation planning in all areas with more than 8  50,000 people. Agency operations and policy are directed by a board of local elected and appointed 9  officials. 10  MPOs were first mentioned in the 1962 Federal Aid Highway Act, but were not constituted as 11  official agencies until the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1973. The contemporary MPO planning process 12  and organizational structure was put in place by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Act (ISTEA) in 13  1991. MPOs were established in response to an outcry from local governments about of the lack of a 14  local voice in the route choices of major Federal-aid freeways, such as the Interstate Highway System (7). 15  The chief purpose of the MPO is to plan and program transportation improvements. The process is 16  founded on a metropolitan transportation plan, which must look at least 20 years into the future. The 17  projects identified by the MPO in the metropolitan transportation plan usually do not have a construction 18  timeframe, and act more as a pool of approved projects to be built over the next 20-plus years. The MPO 19  selects projects from the metropolitan transportation plan for inclusion in a four- to five-year 20  Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The TIP sets a timetable for construction. The projects in
  7. 7. Alexander Bond    7  1  the MPO Transportation Improvement Program must be included in the State Transportation 2  Improvement Program (STIP). A project’s presence in the STIP enables contracts to be issued for actual 3  construction. 4  Over time, the role of MPOs has expanded to include important issues like protection of civil 5  rights, preservation of cultural resources, safety controls, proactive enforcement of the National 6  Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), and control of air pollution under the Clean Air Act. Failure to 7  establish an MPO or execute the prescribed planning program will result in a withholding of Federal 8  highway and transit dollars for that region (8). 9  The wide variety of MPO organizational structures and boundaries presents substantial 10  difficulties when attempting to improve or standardize the MPO planning and programming process. The 11  Federal government, research institutions, and contractors are unable to craft “one-size fits all” tools, 12  software, and planning approaches because MPOs are all so different from each other. Further, MPOs 13  will have difficulty adjusting to new duties (such as greenhouse gas reduction) if MPOs are not made to 14  more closely resemble each other. 15  16  MPO Designation 17  The process of establishing an MPO is called “designation.” Every ten years, the Census Bureau issues a 18  list of UZAs. All of the land area inside a UZA must be covered by an MPO. The MPOs in each state are 19  designated by agreement between the governor of the state and local governments representing 75% of 20  the population in the MPO area, including the largest municipality. The MPO planning boundary is 21  expected to cover land that is forecast to become urbanized over the next twenty years. A single MPO 22  can cross state lines. In fact, about 14% of all MPOs operating today are multi-state (9). Once 23  designated, the MPO does not need the Governor’s approval to expand its boundary unless a new UZA is 24  created outside the planning area. 25  Federal law does not describe the organizational composition of an MPO. Nor does it prescribe the 26  way MPOs are organized to cover the UZAs in the state. Over the decades, a wide variety of MPO 27  boundaries have been established. Little research exists on the optimal MPO configuration. Figure 4 28  illustrates three of the many conditions allowable under current law. Maps are courtesy of the Florida 29  MPO Advisory Council: 30  • A common type of MPO boundary can be seen in the map of the Gainesville (FL) MTPO, which 31  is map B in Figure 3. A small portion of land area outside the UZA is included in the MPO planning 32  boundary. This is land expected to become urbanized in the next twenty years. 33  • A single MPO can cover more than one UZA, as demonstrated in map A. In this case, the 34  Volusia (FL) MPO covers the entirety of both the Deltona UZA and the Daytona Beach-Port Orange 35  UZA. 36  • A single UZA may be covered by more than one MPO, as shown in map C. The Broward (FL) 37  MPO covers only part of the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach UZA. The rest of the UZA is 38  covered by two other MPOs (Miami-Dade MPO and Palm Beach MPO), because all land area in a UZA 39  must be inside an MPO planning area.
  8. 8. Alexander Bond    8  1  2  FIGURE 4 Example MPO boundary maps. 3  4  ANALYSIS 5  The past several decades have seen a significant expansion of cities, rapid suburbanization, new planning 6  requirements on MPOs, and new ideas about the practice of transportation planning. All of these 7  developments make the MSA a more logical basis for MPO designation. Below are several arguments in 8  favor of MPO designation under the MSA standard. 9  10  Coterminous with Local and Regional Governments 11  UZAs bear no relation to the boundaries of local government. MSAs by definition must end at county 12  borders. Being coterminous with the boundaries of local governments provides MSAs with certain 13  advantages over UZAs as MPO boundaries. 14  15  Uniform Data 16  One of the most compelling arguments in favor of an MSA standard is the synchronization and 17  compatibility of datasets and information standards. The MSA is the most commonly used geography for 18  government data collection and distribution of grants from government programs. A 2004 Government 19  Accountability Office (15) study of thirty-five major Federal funding programs intended to assist cities 20  used formulas based on MSAs. None used UZAs in their formulae. The MSA is used to amalgamate and 21  publish statistics from the Departments of Commerce, Education, Labor, Justice, Transportation, 22  Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development. The UZA is only used for a narrow set of data produced 23  by the Departments of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and the Census Bureau. Under 24  an MSA standard, most of the data produced by the government and private sector will automatically
  9. 9. Alexander Bond    9  1  match the MPO’s planning area, facilitating quick and simple calculations during the planning process. 2  Currently, MPOs must expend considerable effort to break down data into the correct geography. 3  Travel demand models depend heavily on data. Since 1973 creation of MPOs, engineers and 4  planners have developed and refined a number of tools to predict future demand on the transportation 5  system. These complex systems often have to look well beyond the UZA in order to forecast 6  transportation demand. For example, the model needs to predict inter-regional trips, which requires 7  volume input for roadways that lie far beyond the UZA boundary. An MSA-sized MPO would do a 8  better job of supporting travel demand modeling because more lane miles that are not “urban” would 9  automatically be included in the planning area, and thus, the urban travel demand model. 10  Beyond travel demand modeling, transportation planning in general is better served with a MSA- 11  sized MPO. The MPO can take a stronger position in transit visioning, since the planning area would 12  cover urban, rural, on-demand, and regional transit system service areas. The MPO would also be in a 13  more powerful position to influence growth management if the planning area boundary was larger. 14  Finally, Federal transportation planning money could be leveraged into improved transportation planning 15  at the local level. 16  17  Land Use Coordination and Growth Management 18  It is generally accepted planning practice that land use and transportation need to be better integrated (10). 19  Further, growth management efforts are significantly strengthened if transportation infrastructure is used 20  as a growth management tool to combat urban sprawl (11). In most states, land use is the sole 21  responsibility of local governments. MPOs are not authorized to govern land use. Since the MPO 22  planning area is not required to match a local or regional land use planning area, integrating transportation 23  and land use can be a difficult exercise. By using an MSA designation standard, the MPO would produce 24  a transportation plan for an entire county or group of counties. The information from the MPO plan could 25  be directly incorporated into each county’s land use plan. Through an iterative process over several plan 26  cycles, land use and transportation would become more closely integrated. 27  28  Political Constituencies 29  If MPO boundaries are coterminous with local government boundaries, then the constituencies of MPO 30  board members would lie entirely within the MPO area. Figure 5 demonstrates an example of this 31  situation using the county commission districts of Escambia County, FL (Pensacola). The approximate 32  MPO boundary line is shown bisecting District 5. A small area of District 5 lies inside the MPO, but it 33  also covers a vast non-MPO area in the northern part of the county. The commissioner serving this 34  district has many constituents who do not live in the MPO area, and may not live in the MPO area 35  himself. This can create a conflict of interest for that official. If the MPO extended to the county 36  boundary–as would be the case under an MSA standard—the Commissioner of District 5 will represent 37  all of his constituents on the MPO board. 38 
  10. 10. Alexander Bond    10  Approximate MPO  Boundary  1  2  FIGURE 5 County commission districts of Escambia County, FL. 3  4  Councils of Government 5  In 1959, President Eisenhower established the Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR), 6  which oversaw the transition of traditional state-based programs toward program implementation at the 7  regional level. The most lasting result of ACIR’s effort was the establishment of Councils of Government 8  (COGs), which have a variety of names like Associations of Government, Regional Councils, or Planning 9  and Development Commissions. The 500-plus COGs operating today have become a standard component 10  of government all across the United States (12). Many COGs administer programs that must be treated 11  regionally, such as affordable housing, environmental protection, emergency management, or local 12  transportation like recreational trails and paratransit. Some COGs also function as MPOs. Many, if not 13  most, are organized around regions that closely resemble MSAs. 14  If MPOs were designated around MSAs, their boundaries would be more similar to COGs. Major 15  advantages of having a similar boundary include data sharing, intergovernmental coordination, and the 16  introduction of non-transportation information into the MPO process. Some programs commonly 17  administered by COGs could help inform and influence the transportation planning process, such as 18  housing, water quality, and emergency preparedness. The COG should not be forced to become the 19  MPO, nor should MPOs be incentivized to become hosted by the COG. Such decisions can only be made 20  through intergovernmental political decision-making in each region. COGs and MPOs do not need to 21  merge in order to get these benefits—they just need similar borders so that information can flow freely. 22  23  Air Quality Conformity 24  A regulatory and funding system known as National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) were 25  established by the Clean Air Act of 1990. Governors are required under 45 USC 7407 (D)4(a)iv to 26  submit to the Environmental Protection Agency a list of regions that do not meet ozone, carbon monoxide 27  and particulate matter standards of air quality. The default size of a nonattainment area is a metropolitan
  11. 11. Alexander Bond    11  1  statistical area. However, the governor is able to alter that boundary by documenting his reasons to the 2  EPA (14). From this section of law, it is clear that Congress intended for air quality to be measured and 3  solutions administered at the MSA level. However, much transportation planning is required to take 4  place at the much smaller UZA scale. 5  Congress charged MPOs with developing transportation solutions to combat poor air quality. 6  Beginning with ISTEA, and continued in TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU, the Congestion Mitigation and Air 7  Quality (CMAQ) program has provided transportation funding for regions that are in NAAQS non- 8  attainment or maintenance status. MPOs are the agency in charge of the planning and programming of 9  about $1.7 billion per year in CMAQ money. As of July 2009, fifty-five air quality regions are in 10  nonattainment for ozone standards, and thirty-seven for particulate matter standards. Further, standards 11  for ozone will tighten with the implementation of new rules by the end of 2011, causing more regions to 12  fall into nonattainment. Air quality is a serious problem, and transportation planning is a big part of the 13  solution. However, there is often a mismatch between an MPO planning area arranged around a UZA and 14  the air quality airshed identified by MSA. This can complicate the integration of regional transportation 15  planning and air quality planning, particularly in locales that only recently were found to be in 16  nonattainment. 17  18  Fewer MPOs, Better Coverage 19  Some have criticized the large number of MPOs in existence, and doubt the ability of smaller MPOs to 20  fully perform the tasks required by Federal law (15). Using MSAs as the standard, more of the US 21  population would be included in an MPO area, while simultaneously limiting the total number of MPOs. 22  See table 1 for a summary of the UZAs and MSAs from the 2000 Census. There are 484 UZAs in the 23  country, which have been organized into 385 MPOs. UZAs cover approximately 63% of the population. 24  Meanwhile, 362 MSAs cover 80% of the American public. 25  It is unknown how many MPOs would be organized from among the MSAs, but the number 26  would certainly be fewer than are found today. Because MSAs include entire counties, there are 27  opportunities for only one MPO to be formed where there are currently two or more. For example, the 28  borders of the four-county Orlando-Kissimmee MSA currently have two MPOs operating in it 29  (METROPLAN Orlando and Lake-Sumter MPO). Under the MSA standard, the entire MSA would 30  function as only one MPO. This assumes that new regulations would require only one MPO per MSA. 31  32  TABLE 1 Number and Population in MSAs and UZAs Geography Type Number Percent US Population Urbanized Area 484 63% Metropolitan 362 80% Statistical Area 33  34  Current Trends in MPO Boundary Expansion 35  A change in Federal law is not needed for individual MPOs to reap the benefits of expanding the MPO 36  boundary. It is important for MPO leadership to understand that current law allows nearly complete 37  freedom in setting the agency’s planning area. The boundaries of an MPO can be expanded at any time if 38  local governments in the area agree to the change. A more formal process of re-designation can take 39  place after each Census. Therefore, MPOs already have the capability of matching their planning area 40  boundary to the edge of the MSA, and all of the advantages discussed in this paper can be achieved by 41  taking that action. 42  Many MPOs have already expanded well beyond the required area. Twenty-seven percent of 43  MPOs in the US have more than one UZA in their planning area. More than 42% encompass more than 44  one county (9). Larger MPO planning areas suggest that the intergovernmental political process in that 45  region has concluded that the area functions as a single transportation region and should have a single 46  MPO. Clearly, many regional already see a benefit in an expanded planning area.
  12. 12. Alexander Bond    12  1  Figure 6 shows the planning area boundaries of MPOs currently operating in the United States. A 2  visual inspection of the map reveals that MPO boundaries are much larger than the UZA, and also extend 3  beyond the expected 20-year growth boundary. The size and shape of MPO boundaries have more in 4  common with MSAs than UZAs. This is particularly true in Florida, California, Pennsylvania, the great 5  lakes region, and the northeast corridor. When the two maps are compared, it is clear that MPO 6  boundaries already are more similar to MSAs than UZAs. 7  8  9  FIGURE 6 A comparison of MSA and MPO boundaries. 10  11  One reason some MPOs extend their planning area is to match the boundary of their host agency. 12  Some MPOs forge hosting partnerships with other agencies because of information gathering, cost 13  savings, or political advantages. According to a recent study, approximately 68% of MPOs were hosted 14  by another agency. The most common hosting relationship is with Councils of Government or similar 15  regional general-purpose government agencies. Approximately 24% of all MPOs in the United States are 16  hosted at a COG. Another 16.5% of MPOs are hosted by a County Government (9).
  13. 13. Alexander Bond    13  1  2  MODIFICATIONS TO THE MSA 3  MSAs are by definition quite large. Most include stretches of land that is rural in character, and this is 4  one of the major drawbacks of using the MSA standard. Fortunately, there are at least two modifications 5  to the MSA standard that would help alleviate this problem. 6  The first policy alternative is to use only “core” MSA counties. When the Office of Management 7  and Budget assembles an MSA, it begins with a core county (or sometimes counties), which is the county 8  that has 50,000 or more people and a dense core. Then additional counties are added. MPOs could be 9  required to cover only the core county, while making outlying counties optional. This system would 10  allow rural outlying counties to be omitted from the MPO planning area. For example, the Gainesville 11  MSA’s core county is Alachua County, FL (pop. 217,000). The MSA also includes rural Gilchrist 12  County (pop. 14,437) as an “outlying” county because more than 25% of the residents work in Alachua 13  County. Under this policy alternative, only Alachua County would be required to be in the MPO, while 14  Gilchrist County would be optional. 15  There are some single-county MSAs that would have broad stretches of rural land area. Some 16  counties are exceptionally large in land area, particularly in mountain west states. Since MSAs are 17  coterminous with counties, these very large counties could turn into very large MPOs. An alternative 18  could be for the MPO to “opt out” Census tracts that have a very low population density. In order to opt 19  out, the MPO would need to go through some sort of approval process to prove the administrative 20  purpose for excluding land area. For example, the Flagstaff MSA (pop. 127,000) is comprised only of 21  Coconino County, Arizona. But Coconino County’s land area of 18,661 square miles makes it larger than 22  nine US states. This is an extremely large area to effectively maintain an MPO planning process. Wide 23  portions of Coconino County are desert with a population density below 10 people per square mile. 24  Under this alternative, the Flagstaff MPO could apply to the USDOT to exclude from its planning area all 25  census tracts with a population density below 10 people per square mile. The application process would 26  need to be laid out specifically in regulation. 27  28  CONCLUSION 29  It is very important for MPO designation to be based on a third-party definition. Initial 30  designation of an MPO can be a contentious issue that encroaches on the traditional areas of responsibility 31  of several groups. State Departments of Transportation lose considerable project selection authority, and 32  the balance between municipalities and the county can be upended. Having a neutral third party 33  determine the boundary is a simple way to ensure that the legislative intent of MPO creation is met. Since 34  the establishment of MPOs, the neutral party has been the Census Bureau drawing the UZA. An MSA 35  drawn by the Office of Management and Budget also fits the definition. Both are neutral third parties and 36  draw a district with a clearly defined geography. 37  MSAs offer several advantages over the UZA for MPO designation. They are, by definition, 38  coterminous with local government and regional governments, and match closely with air quality 39  conformity areas. Further, more of the United States is covered by an MPO while at the same time 40  limiting the number of agencies being operated. Many MPOs already possess planning areas that more 41  closely resemble MSAs than UZAs. The designation standard should be included in the successor 42  legislation to SAFETEA-LU and put into effect following the results of the OMB’s revised list of MSAs 43  based on the 2010 Census. 44  Establishing MPO planning areas by MSA could have powerful impacts on transportation 45  planning because of uniformity and standardization. After four decades of use, the time is right for an 46  honest reevaluation of the MPO and the scale of the metropolitan planning process. The MSA is a more 47  accurate representation of modern MPOs and metropolitan transportation planning, and it should be given 48  strong consideration as the basis for MPO boundary delineation.
  14. 14. Alexander Bond    14  1  REFERENCES 2  (1) Environmental Protection Agency, “Storm Water Phase II Final Rule: Urbanized Areas: Definitions 3  and Descriptions.” Document Number EPA-833-F-00-004, Issued December 2005. 4  5  (2) Bureau of the Census. “Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas.” Accessed July 14th, 2009. 6  Available from: 7  8  (3) Federal Register: Volume 65, Number 249 (December 27, 2000) pp. 82228-82230. 9  10  (4) Gauthier, Jason, “Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses from 1790 to 2000” United States 11  Census Bureau, September 2002. 12  13  (5) Frey, William and Zachary Zimmer. “Chapter 2: Defining the City.” From Handbook of Urban 14  Studies, Ronan Paddison, ed. Sage Publications, 2001. 15  16  (6) Office of Management and Budget Executive Order No. 10253 (June 11, 1951) 17  18  (7) Solof, Mark. “History of Metropolitan Planning Organizations.” Newark, NJ: North Jersey 19  Transportation Planning Agency. 1998. Available from: 20 21  22  (8) Federal Highway Administration/Federal Transit Administration Transportation Planning Capacity 23  Building Program, “The Transportation Planning Process: Key Issues.” Document #FHWA-HEP-07-039. 24  September 2007. Available from: 25  26  (9) Bond, Alexander and Jeff Kramer, “Staffing and Administrative Capacity of Metropolitan Planning 27  Organizations.” Federal Highway Administration Contract # DTFH61-08-C-00021. 2009 28  29  (10) Ewing, Reid and Robert Cervero. “Travel and the Built Environment: a Synthesis,” Transportation 30  Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Volume 1780. 2001. 31  32  (11) Nicholas, James C., and Ruth L. Steiner. 2000. "Growth Management and Smart Growth in 33  Florida." Wake Forest Law Review 35:645-670. 34  35  (12) National Association of Counties, “The History of County Government.” Accessed 7/10/2009. 36  Available from: 37  County_Government/Default983.htm   38  39  (13) Weitz, Jerry and Ethan Setzer. “Regional Planning and Regional Governance in the United States 40  1979-1996.” Journal of Planning Literature, Volume 12, Number 3, pp. 361-392. 1998. 41  42  (14) Transportation Research Board. “Special Report #264: The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 43  Program—Assessing 10 Years of Experience.” National Academy Press: Washington, DC. 2002 44  45  (15) Turnbull, Katherine, Ed. Transportation Research Board Conference Proceedings Number 39: The 46  Metropolitan Planning Organization: Past, Present, and Future. 2006. Available from: 47 48  49  (16) Government Accountability Office, “Metropolitan Statistical Areas- New Standards and Their 50  Impact on Selected Federal Programs.” Report to the House Committee on Government Reform, June 51  2004. Available from: