Evolution of MPO Planning in Florida: 1997-2008

Alexander Bond and Jeff Kramer 1

1 Evolution of MPO Long Range Transportation Plans in Florida:
2 1997-2008
3
4
5 Submission Date: 11/5/2009
6
7 Word Count: 5,623 (5,373 in text, 1figure)
8
9
10
11 Corresponding Author:
12 Alexander Bond, AICP
13 Center for Urban Transportation Research
14 University of South Florida
15 4202 E. Fowler Ave, CUT 100
16 Tampa, FL 33620-5375
17 (813) 974-9779
18 Fax: (813) 974-5168
19 ALBond@cutr.usf.edu
20
21 Jeff Kramer, AICP
22 Center for Urban Transportation Research
23 University of South Florida
24 4202 E. Fowler Ave, CUT 100
25 Tampa, FL 33620-5375
26 (813) 974-1397
27 Fax: (813) 974-5168
28 Kramer@cutr.usf.edu
29


1 ABSTRACT
2 Every five years, the Florida MPO Advisory Council undertakes a review of all metropolitan planning
3 organization long range transportation plans (LRTP) in the state. The purpose of the review is to identify
4 trends in planning practice and locate areas of potential improvement. This paper documents the review
5 of LRTPs undertaken in 2008, and contrasts the results with those collected over the two previous
6 planning cycles. Florida’s MPOs made great strides with their LRTPs during the last plan cycle. Plan
7 documents are better organized, more descriptive, and more accessible to the general public. Public
8 involvement, intergovernmental coordination, and multimodalism have also advanced significantly.
9 There has been mixed success at adjustment to changes brought from the outside, such as the
10 implementation of the Efficient Transportation Decision Making process (ETDM), increasingly common
11 toll facilities, and increased emphasis on freight movement. While progress is clearly being made each
12 planning cycle, a number of areas still show room for improvement. Most of the improvements needed
13 surround better documentation of how projects advance through the planning process. Public
14 involvement was generally well-executed, but it was often not documented how the public’s input
15 impacted the LRTP or the projects included. Additional planning focus is needed on freight and the
16 transportation disadvantaged. The paper concludes with a series of suggestions for improved planning
17 during the next LRTP cycle.
18


1 INTRODUCTION
2 The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-
3 LU) continued the longstanding role of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) as the lead agency
4 in the metropolitan transportation planning process. One of the core documents in the metropolitan
5 transportation planning process is the long range transportation plan (LRTP). Federal and Florida statutes
6 and rules require plans to cover at least a twenty-year time horizon. Plans must also be cost-feasible,
7 which is defined as containing only projects that can be funded with reasonably expected revenue sources
8 over the life of the document.
9 Every five years, the Florida MPO Advisory Council (MPOAC) and the Florida Department of
10 Transportation (FDOT) asks the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) at the University of
11 South Florida to review the LRTPs of MPOs in the state of Florida. The studies are timed so that a new
12 plan update will have been adopted by each MPO prior to each study cycle. The latest study, completed
13 October 2008, was the third study in the series. Due to the number of reviews performed over the last
14 decade, the research team is afforded a particularly good view of the evolution of MPO planning practice
15 in the state.
16 The primary purpose of the plan review is to identify trends of planning practice and help MPOs
17 compare themselves to their peers. The MPOAC also hopes to standardize planning and reporting
18 practices across Florida. A report was issued that made specific recommendations for improvement, but
19 this paper focuses only on current conditions and trends in MPO practice.
20
21 MPO Background
22 An MPO is a regional transportation infrastructure planning agency. The Federal government requires
23 MPOs to perform transportation planning in all areas with more than 50,000 people. Agency operations
24 and policy are directed by a board of local elected and appointed officials.
25 MPOs were first established as they are known today by the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1973.
26 They were established in response to an outcry from local governments about of the lack of a local voice
27 in the route choices of major Federal-aid freeways, such as the Interstate Highway System (1).
28 Many MPO plans share a similar structure. The typical plan begins with a statement of guiding
29 principles, goals, and objectives. This policy guidance helps define the next section, which is an analysis
30 of needs. Often, the MPO will use a travel demand model to help estimate future demand. Most MPOs
31 look at the existing network, demographic trends, and projected demand to establish a pool of needed
32 projects. Many MPOs publish an official “need plan,” but this is not a requirement of Federal law. The
33 needs pool is compiled without regard to project cost, and it represents the MPO’s “wish list” if money
34 for transportation projects was unlimited. However, the needs list is usually screened for projects that
35 may violate National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) standards, civil rights, Environmental Justice
36 standards, or damage historic and cultural resources.
37 The projects identified by the MPO in the LRTP do not have a construction timeframe. The MPO
38 selects projects from the LRTP for inclusion in a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) which
39 covers a four to five year timeframe. The projects in the MPO TIP must be included in the State
40 Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), providing MPOs with a level of control over the
41 transportation projects built in their region using federal funds.
42 Over time, the role of MPOs has expanded to include important issues like protection of civil
43 rights, preservation of cultural resources, safety controls, proactive enforcement of NEPA provisions, and
44 control of air pollution under the Clean Air Act. Failure to establish an MPO or execute the prescribed
45 planning program will result in a withholding of federal highway and transit dollars for that region (2).
46
47 MPOs in Florida
48 There are twenty-six MPOs in Florida, some alternately known as Transportation Planning Organizations
49 (TPO), Transportation Planning Agencies (TPA), Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organizations
50 (MTPO) or having unique names like METROPLAN Orlando. Florida has twenty-six MPOs, the
51 highest in the nation. Many of Florida’s MPOs are organized around entire counties. Today, Florida’s


1 MPOs cover about 47% of the state’s land area and approximately 93% of the population. Figure 1
2 shows the planning area boundaries of MPOs in the state.
3

4
5 FIGURE 1 MPOs in Florida.
6
7 METHODOLOGY
8 The most recent review of Florida’s MPO LRTPs began in August 2007. Each MPO in the state was
9 asked to provide a hard copy of their LRTP. The MPOs determined for themselves if they wanted to
10 provide additional summaries, supplemental reports, or electronic copies for review. Plans were reviewed
11 between November 2007 and June 2008. Follow-up information was sought from MPO directors if
12 questions arose during the review. It should be noted that there were only twenty-five LRTP documents
13 to review because the Martin MPO and the St. Lucie County TPO authored a joint plan.
14 SAFETEA-LU and its accompanying rules came into effect between reviews. Although some
15 MPOs had already adopted their LRTP for this cycle prior to the passage of the bill, all MPOs were
16 required to bring their LRTPs into conformity with SAFETEA-LU by July 2007. Many did so through
17 minor amendments, often in the form of a new appendix which did not significantly modify the original
18 LRTP document.
19
20 MPO PRACTICE
21 During the course of reviewing tens of thousands of pages in twenty-five different documents, many
22 generalized observations of current practice became evident. This section details those broad
23 observations, and is interspersed with outstanding examples from individual MPOs. LRTP documents
24 were greatly improved since 2002, and made a substantial leap forward from the first review in 1997(3).
25 Where appropriate, comparisons are made between reviews in 2002 and 1997.
26


1 User-Friendliness
2 The most obvious improvements have been in user-friendliness and public involvement. Since the very
3 earliest reviews, MPO documents have always been technically sound—model inputs, outputs, and
4 scenario building were always rated above average. However, the appearance of the document, technical
5 jargon, and lack of thorough explanation made understanding an LRTP a daunting exercise. Plans
6 reviewed in the most recent cycle made great strides in the use of graphical elements, non-technical
7 language, and pleasing document layouts.
8 Many MPOs went to great lengths to explain transportation and planning issues of the region to
9 the lay reader of the LRTP. For example, the Hillsborough County MPO devoted the first several pages
10 of its LRTP to explaining the purpose of the document and how the document can be used by the public.
11 The Pinellas County MPO included a glossary, and the Pasco County MPO provided an acronym guide to
12 help lay people decipher transportation planning jargon. Most MPOs included similar information to
13 make their document easier for the public to read and understand.
14 Seventeen of twenty-five MPOs developed a summary document such as an executive summary
15 or hand-out map. The Florida-Alabama TPO, the Bay County TPO, and the Okaloosa-Walton TPO
16 produced outstanding examples of summary documents on glossy, fold-out brochures. These summaries
17 included approximately six pages of text and figures summarizing the document on one side, while the
18 reverse side featured a detailed 34 inch by 22 inch map of the adopted cost feasible projects.
19 About a quarter of the documents were authored by in-house staff, while the remainder were
20 authored by outside consultants. Four consulting firms authored more than one plan. In-house
21 documents tended to have distinctive layouts, custom graphics, and significant text devoted to public
22 involvement efforts. Some plans authored by the same firm shared design elements, methodologies, and
23 even duplicated text. While this did not appear to impact the quality of individual plans this cycle, it
24 signals the potential that unique characteristics of each region could be missed in future cycles.
25 The authors of current LRTPs demonstrated a willingness to discuss the more difficult points of
26 transportation planning. Financial shortfalls, tradeoff analyses, and potential problems are being
27 discussed frankly. In previous years, these issues were largely ignored.
28 The past five years have seen substantial advances in Internet technology. Further, SAFETEA-
29 LU required LRTPs to be available electronically. All twenty-five LRTPs are available on the Internet.
30 Electronic publishing offers much lower costs, wider distribution of documents, and the ability to cross-
31 link with related documents such as the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). However, over a
32 quarter of MPOs offered their LRTP exclusively over the Internet. This may disadvantage certain
33 segments of the public who do not have computer skills or access to the Internet.
34
35 Public Involvement
36 Common public involvement activities included newsletters, public meetings, charettes, and interviews
37 with community leaders. Nearly all MPOs embraced the trend toward electronic communication by
38 creating Websites dedicated to their plan, offering newsletters over the Internet, and accepting public
39 comments by email.
40 Some examples of innovative public involvement include:
41
42 • Visual Choice Surveys were distributed by the Florida-Alabama TPO, the Okaloosa-Walton TPO,
43 and the Bay County TPO. These surveys presented participants with photographic examples of the
44 options being considered, and asked them to rate their preference. For example, a roadway is shown with
45 a variety of median configurations, bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure, and foliage and participants are
46 asked to select their preferred alternative.
47 • The “Strings and Ribbons” activity employed by the Volusia County MPO and the Ocala/Marion
48 County TPO allowed the MPOs to collect geographic data on the public’s vision for the future and
49 compare it to the one crafted by staff and the MPO advisory committees. Participants were given fixed
50 lengths of string and ribbon which correlate to expected revenue by mode. Participants then designed


1 their preferred transportation system by affixing strings to a map of the region. Staff then collected
2 information from the maps and compiled the data to determine public preference.
3 • The Miami-Dade MPO went to great lengths to inform the public in all languages frequently
4 spoken in their region. TV shows, radio segments, documents, and newsletters were distributed in
5 English, Spanish, and Haitian Creole.
6 • The Polk TPO hosted a live call-in television show to discuss the LRTP.
7
8 Although MPOs are employing an array of public involvement techniques, many LRTP
9 documents failed to document how information gained during the public participation process influenced
10 the outcome of the LRTP document. Public involvement, although well executed, seemed to sometimes
11 be regarded as a stand-alone task in the LRTP drafting process.
12 There were notable exceptions to this observation that provide guidance on how to link data
13 collected through the public involvement process with the final cost-feasible plan. The Indian River
14 County MPO used public opinion information to assign increased weight to certain criteria for selecting
15 cost feasible projects. The Volusia County MPO’s “Strings and Ribbons” activity established that the
16 public preferred eighty-two percent of transportation revenue be expended on roadways, which was used
17 as a benchmark later in the document. Further, a “Citizens Alternative” showing the top thirty most
18 popular improvements based on the results of the “Strings and Ribbons” exercise was compared with
19 technical alternatives derived from the travel demand model and used to refine the final cost feasible plan.
20 MPOs continue to struggle with poor public understanding of their mission and work products.
21 Several MPOs attempted to “brand” their agency with logos, slogans, and name changes that capture the
22 public’s attention. The Sarasota/Manatee MPO found that only fifty percent of surveyed stakeholders
23 were familiar with the agency, and this was considered a high figure. Some observed branding efforts
24 included coordinated logo and color schemes, descriptive agency names, and thoughtful design of public
25 involvement materials. Another type of branding was a more user-friendly name for the LRTP and the
26 drafting process. For example, METROPLAN Orlando named their project and plan “Community
27 Connections- A Transportation Vision for the Next 25 Years,” which effectively described the purpose of
28 the document to the general public.
29
30 Efficient Transportation Decision Making
31 In 2001, the Florida Department of Transportation deployed the Efficient Transportation Decision
32 Making (ETDM) information management system. This system integrates information from a variety of
33 agencies, provides opportunities for other agencies to monitor the activities of others, and provides a
34 central point of contact for comments. The ETDM system allows a proposed transportation project to be
35 screened using existing environmental and cultural datasets to uncover potential violations of NEPA, civil
36 rights, or historic/cultural preservation laws. This streamlines the review process and “pre-clears”
37 projects for inclusion in plans and programs, including those produced by MPOs. The ETDM system also
38 includes a comment system for the general public and resource agencies (Environmental Protection, Fish
39 & Game, Historic Preservation, Elder Affairs, etc) to enter comments relating to transportation projects
40 and actions.
41 The ETDM process has proven to be an effective tool for identifying potential environmental
42 impacts, given the broad participation of a number of federal and state resource agencies. However,
43 overreliance on the ETDM process to identify cultural and community impacts creates the potential to
44 overlook issues that are not typically within the purview of those agencies. Therefore, ETDM does not
45 fully substitute for a thorough study of local conditions by the MPO. Because ETDM relies on input from
46 other agencies and outside groups, any comments received may not capture issues of a local nature or be
47 consistent enough to influence the outcome of the plan.
48 Even though the overall trend was toward relying on ETDM, there were some excellent examples
49 of local community impact analysis. The Capital Region TPA demonstrated attention to community
50 impacts by inventorying and categorizing so-called “canopy roads,” where mature oak trees shade the
51 street. These roadways were considered policy constrained during the project selection process and thus


1 excluded from the cost feasible plan. The Gainesville MTPO eliminated all projects that would impact a
2 park or recreation area. It is unlikely that canopy roadways or park resources would have been identified
3 in the typical ETDM process, yet through the MPOs’ efforts, local cultural assets were preserved.
4 Another potential unintended consequence of relying too heavily on ETDM is the reduction of the
5 MPOs capacity to independently participate in the ETDM process as a resource agency. MPOs that do
6 not collect their own sociocultural data will not have unique information to supply to the ETDM process
7 when other agencies propose projects. For example, if a toll authority proposes a project, an MPO that
8 does not maintain its own sociocultural data set may find itself incapable of alerting the toll authority of
9 the project’s potential impact on local community or cultural resources.
10
11 Freight and Economic Competitiveness
12 Many MPOs considered freight movement to be a factor in their area’s transportation system, but few
13 dedicated much space in the LRTP to the subject. Special studies were sometimes noted, but there was
14 little evidence that these studies influenced the outcome of the LRTP. A handful of MPOs established
15 goods movement advisory boards, which offered private sector carriers an important opportunity to
16 furnish information to the agency. Even the modest discussion of freight is a big improvement, since
17 previous plans usually did not discuss freight at all.
18 Most MPOs catalogued the location of major goods movement hubs like ports, airports, and
19 freight rail intermodal centers. Some discussed the locations of major employers and goods distribution
20 centers. Some used freight benefits as a project selection criterion. The Indian River County MPO
21 analyzed the goods movement performance of the proposed system between adoption of the needs plan
22 and the cost feasible plan. It produced information about the volume to capacity ratio of goods movement
23 thoroughfares and intermodal access roads.
24
25 Non-Highway Modes
26 Planning for alternative modes has made great strides since 1997 and 2002. Though highway projects
27 still dominate the needs and cost-feasible plans of MPOs, this plan cycle saw a substantial improvement
28 in efforts to incorporate alternative modes of transportation. Bicycle and pedestrian facility planning has
29 become commonplace, and was usually considered in a process similar–or even alongside–roadway
30 facilities. Transit planning was not as mature, but showed significant improvement.
31
32 Bicycle and Pedestrian
33 There was a strong commitment to bicycle and pedestrian planning evident in almost all LRTPs. Nearly
34 all documents recognized bicycle and pedestrian facilities as a needed form of transportation
35 infrastructure. Further, bicycle lane and sidewalk costs were almost universally included in the
36 calculation of construction costs. This makes it much more likely that new roadways and widenings will
37 have bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
38 Bicycle/pedestrian and transit infrastructure investments were sometimes planned for using the
39 boxed funds method. Under this method, the LRTP often commits to spending a set amount of money per
40 year for the life of the plan, but defers project selection to a later date. Frequently, the LRTP defers
41 project selection to a separately adopted document such as a bicycle/pedestrian needs assessment or the
42 local transit development plan. A handful of MPOs, such as the Pasco County MPO, charged the Bicycle
43 and Pedestrian Advisory Committee to select and forward to the Governing Board projects they felt
44 should be constructed with each year’s boxed funds.
45
46 Transit
47 Every MPO discussed transit in their plan, and nearly all included at least one transit project in the cost
48 feasible plan. Transit was sometimes separated into its own chapter and had a separate transit cost
49 feasible plan, never bringing transit and other modes together as a unified system. While the higher level
50 of transit consideration is a step forward, separating transit from other modes may hamper the formation
51 of a truly integrated multimodal metropolitan transportation system.


1 Many MPOs, primarily in small and medium-sized metropolitan areas, are using an inverted
2 evaluation process to establish cost feasible transit projects. Transit revenues are being estimated before
3 needed projects are selected. Therefore, needed but unfunded transit projects are never identified. By
4 treating transit needs differently than highway needs, these MPOs are likely underestimating their overall
5 system needs. In some cases, this inverted evaluation process is attributable to the influence of the local
6 transit development plan (TDP). Some MPOs merely copied the transit needs analysis from the TDP,
7 which does not use the same planning process or timeline as the MPO.
8
9 Intelligent Transportation Systems
10 Nearly all MPOs documented the operational status of ITS architecture and operation in their region. In
11 areas where the ITS system was not fully operational, LRTPs frequently included these projects alongside
12 roadway and transit improvements in the cost feasible plan. The boxed funds method was frequently
13 encountered. In areas where ITS is currently running, many MPOs planned for the operation of the
14 system. Intelligent Transportation Systems have become so comprehensive and commonplace that they
15 are even helping to drive decision-making by providing new types of data.
16 Despite the near-universal discussion of ITS, it was treated differently across the state. Many
17 MPOs included ITS operations in their plan, while others did not. Some MPOs linked ITS efforts with
18 congestion management systems (CMS or CMP) or system monitoring.
19
20 Interagency Coordination
21 MPOs are increasingly coordinating with their neighbors, members, and peers to help guide the
22 transportation planning process. While MPOs have always held a role as a regional leader and convener,
23 there was a rise in the number and depth of connections between MPOs and affiliated agencies. It is clear
24 that MPOs are finding these cross-agency relationships to be valuable. Further, the research noted these
25 connections between agencies are becoming more formal and institutionalized.
26 The most common interagency coordination was between the MPO and its constituent local
27 governments. Nearly all MPOs referred to their local governments’ capital improvement programs.
28 School boards, water management districts, Native American tribal governments, military installations,
29 toll authorities, and seaport/airport authorities all have some sort of formalized coordination relationship
30 with their MPO. The Bay County TPO leads a regular transportation roundtable consisting of five of its
31 neighboring rural counties. The Brevard MPO reserves seats on its technical advisory committee for
32 Space Florida (Kennedy Space Center), while the Miami-Dade MPO reserves a seat on its governing
33 board for a school board member.
34 MPOs are looking beyond their borders to enhance coordination with MPOs in their part of the
35 state. Sixteen of Florida’s MPOs have joined one of the four multi-MPO coordinating bodies in the state:
36
37 • West Central Florida MPO Chairs Coordinating Committee (Hernando MPO, Pasco County
38 MPO, Hillsborough County MPO, Pinellas County MPO, Polk TPO, Sarasota/Manatee MPO)
39 • Northwest Florida Regional Transportation Planning Organization (Florida-Alabama TPO,
40 Okaloosa-Walton TPO)
41 • Central Florida MPO Alliance (Brevard MPO, Volusia County MPO, METROPLAN Orlando,
42 Lake-Sumter MPO, Polk TPO, Ocala-Marion County TPO)
43 • Southeast Florida Transportation Council (Palm Beach MPO, Broward MPO, Miami-Dade MPO)
44
45 All of these multi-MPO associations take on the task of jointly approving a list of important
46 regional facilities. In turn, each constituent MPO places a high emphasis on those facilities in the
47 modeling and project selection components of its individual LRTP. The Central Florida MPO Alliance
48 (CFMPOA) and the West Central Florida MPO Chairs Coordinating Committee (CCC) developed
49 regional travel demand models for all of their member MPOs to use.


1 MPOs are also collaborating informally with neighboring MPOs. The Martin MPO and the St.
2 Lucie TPO drafted a joint long range transportation plan, the first of its kind in the state. The
3 Sarasota/Manatee MPO and the Charlotte County-Punta Gorda MPO worked closely to develop regional
4 project lists, and shared modeling data and technical information. The Lee County MPO and the Collier
5 MPO worked closely with each other to build a joint travel demand model.
6 Many MPOs seem unsure how to deal with toll facilities, Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise, and toll
7 authorities. Some plans mentioned toll facilities only in passing. Others included detailed descriptions of
8 interactions and joint planning with the local toll authority. Some LRTPs included toll projects in the cost
9 feasible plan, although toll road projects were handled separately from other projects. A few MPOs
10 considered the mention of toll roads to be for informational purposes only.
11
12 Project Selection Criteria
13 Many MPOs did not fully document their methodology for selecting projects to be included in the cost
14 feasible plan. The lack of documentation makes it difficult to determine if the final cost feasible list of
15 projects supports the MPOs long range goals and objectives.
16 One way of achieving internal consistency is through a system of objective project selection
17 criteria, such as a point system, although this method has been declining over time. The Hillsborough
18 County MPO used nine evaluation factors, with each factor carrying a different weight. Alternatively, the
19 First Coast MPO used 13 equally weighted criteria for selecting cost feasible projects, including one that
20 favors hurricane evacuation routes. Most MPOs did not include any discussion on how projects were to
21 be chosen from the cost feasible plan for inclusion in the TIP.
22
23 SUGGESTIONS
24 Based on the results of the review of LRTPs during this planning cycle, and in comparison with those
25 adopted in previous cycles, the following suggestions in planning practice were made to the MPOs of
26 Florida:
27
28 1) MPOs should relate how information gained during public involvement activities was
29 incorporated into the LRTP document and the projects it contains. There were many outstanding
30 examples of public involvement, but readers were generally not shown how the information gained was
31 put to use. Demonstrating the value of public involvement will help ensure that MPOs continue to
32 receive high levels of support for these activities in the future.
33
34 2) MPOs should continue to refine their LRTPs for Internet publication. The publication copy of the
35 plan may need additional formatting to optimize it for Internet posting. Some plans are not published on
36 standard size pages, which complicates the viewing of the document on a standard-sized screen. The
37 Internet can allow plans to contain both standard-size text pages and oversize map pages. Readers can
38 zoom in to view maps in greater detail.
39
40 3) Even though the Internet will be the primary source for LRTP distribution, at least a limited
41 number of documents should be made available in hard copy format. During this review, about a quarter
42 of MPOs did not offer their LRTP in hard copy format. Not all members of the public use the Internet.
43 Having a few hard copies of the LRTP on hand will allow MPOs to fully involve members of the public
44 that do not, or cannot, use a computer.
45
46 4) MPOs should exercise more editorial control over the content of plans authored by consultants,
47 with the aim of crafting a document that is original and customized. MPOs choosing to employ
48 consultants should work closely with their contractors to develop a tailored document that suits their
49 needs. This could include adding language to contract scopes that help meet these goals. Plans authored
50 by the same company sometimes used duplicate text and graphics. While this did not impact plan quality
51 during this past cycle, it has the potential to damage the quality of future documents if the trend continues.


1
2 5) Establish transit needs before revenues are analyzed. Many MPOs are doing the exact opposite—
3 establishing revenues before developing needs. When only projects that can be expected to be paid for
4 are identified in the plan, this results in zero unfunded projects. There should be a pool of unfunded
5 transit projects. Further, the transit element is not as fully integrated into the planning process as it could
6 be.
7
8 6) MPOs should demonstrate their expertise in planning for the transportation disadvantaged in the
9 LRTP. This is a growing segment of the transportation system, and is increasingly important in state and
10 federal governing legislation. Most MPOs did not mention transportation disadvantaged programs, yet
11 almost all Florida MPOs currently perform work in this area. Information and analysis gained during
12 other agency activities should be included in the LRTP. Further, a transportation disadvantaged needs
13 analysis may be able to supplement the needs analysis of transit or bicycle/pedestrian planning.
14
15 7) MPOs need to develop a system for dealing with toll facilities. LRTPs showed considerable
16 variation in the treatment of toll facilities and coordination mechanisms with toll agencies. It is currently
17 unclear how these projects should be incorporated into the MPO plan, whether MPOs have any authority
18 over toll facilities, and how toll revenue should be counted in revenue projections. Guidance from
19 FHWA or individual state DOTs would be helpful in this matter.
20
21 8) MPOs should take greater care to demonstrate and document how the projects contained in their
22 cost feasible plan support the adopted goals and objectives of the LRTP. Many LRTPs did not
23 demonstrate internal consistency. The methodology of the LRTP should be designed so that each goal
24 and objective are given due consideration. Projects should be selected based on adopted goals. Without
25 internal consistency, MPOs may be unintentionally impacting the credibility of their plans and processes
26 with the public.
27
28 9) Freight and goods movement should be a more important consideration for MPOs. Freight is an
29 increasingly important topic in planning, and is attracting increasing amounts of federal investment.
30 Obviously MPOs that have a seaport in their planning area need to refocus their efforts on freight.
31 However, goods move through every metropolitan area, not just those with major seaports or freight
32 airports. Major freight corridors need planning attention, as do intra-regional goods movement.
33
34 10) MPOs should publish the process by which projects will be selected from the cost feasible plan
35 for inclusion in the Transportation Improvement Program. By publishing such a system, the general
36 public will have a stronger understanding of the connection between the LRTP and the TIP. Further,
37 stakeholders will better understand the likelihood of their project being included in the TIP.
38
39 11) There remains a broad definition of what constitutes a transportation “need.” Many MPOs did
40 not establish a desired vision for their region. A common result of a lacking vision is an imprecise
41 definition of what kinds of projects are needed, and in what volume. If the region desires transit, then a
42 massive list of roadways is not appropriate. If the region desires to contain sprawl, having a limited-
43 access beltway in the undeveloped part of the region will not be useful. The needed projects list should
44 be trimmed using policy measures that promote a vision for the MPO area’s future.


1 CONCLUSIONS
2 Reviewing every LRTP in the state has had several advantages for MPOs in Florida. Several MPOs
3 reported taking to heart the recommendations of previous studies when designing their LRTP documents.
4 Further, all MPOs in the state agreed to a set of financial guidelines that should help standardize the
5 estimation of needs, revenue, and shortfalls across the state. Last, all MPOs have agreed to a common
6 horizon year of the next LRTP cycle, which will help model development and revenue projections.
7 Florida’s MPOs made great strides with their LRTPs during the last plan cycle. Plan documents are
8 better organized, far more descriptive, and more accessible to the general public. Public involvement,
9 intergovernmental coordination, and multimodalism have advanced significantly. There has been mixed
10 success at adjustment to changes brought from the outside, such as the implementation of ETDM,
11 increasingly common toll facilities, and increased emphasis on freight movement.
12 While progress is clearly being made each planning cycle, a number of areas still show room for
13 improvement. Most of the improvements are fairly easily solved by better documenting the MPOs’
14 internal processes. The LRTP’s goals and objectives need to be closer tied to the list of cost feasible
15 projects. MPOs should be doing a better job demonstrating how public involvement influenced the
16 outcome of the LRTP and the cost feasible plan. Some MPOs need to clearly demonstrate the process for
17 moving projects from the needs list to the cost feasible plan. Finally, the process for moving projects
18 from the plan to the program should be published. All of these items could be accomplished by requiring
19 additional tasks –along with a moderate amount of additional compensation– from consultants who draft
20 many of the LRTPs adopted across the state.
21 The results of this project are useful beyond the boundaries of Florida. It is important for more
22 states to conduct similar reviews to better understand MPO planning practices in their state. It is likely
23 that MPOs across the United States have similar problems and successes with their planning processes.
24 Simply understanding that their peers struggle to address certain issues can help an MPO resolve to
25 improve its planning process. Each iteration of an MPO’s LRTP offers a chance to improve the quality,
26 inclusiveness, and comprehensiveness of the document. Taking the time to understand where the plan
27 falls short–and where it succeeds–can only lead to improved transportation planning.
28


1 REFERENCES
2 (1) Solof, Mark. “History of Metropolitan Planning Organizations.” Newark, NJ: North Jersey
3 Transportation Planning Agency. 1998. Available from:
4 http://www.njtpa.org/Pub/Report/hist_mpo/documents/MPOhistory1998_000.pdf
5 (2) Federal Highway Administration/Federal Transit Administration Transportation Planning Capacity
6 Building Program, “The Transportation Planning Process: Key Issues.” Document #FHWA-HEP-07-039.
7 September 2007. Available from: http://www.planning.dot.gov/documents/BriefingBook/bbook_07.pdf
8 (3) Kramer, Jeff, and Edward A. Mierzejewski E. (2003). Innovations in Long-Range Transportation
9 Planning: Observations and Suggestions, Transportation Research Record 1858 1–8

Evolution of MPO Planning in Florida: 1997-2008

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Evolution of MPO Planning in Florida: 1997-2008

Similar to Evolution of MPO Planning in Florida: 1997-2008 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Evolution of MPO Planning in Florida: 1997-2008