The transit industry today has an unprecedented opportunity to meet the access and mobility needs of the metropolitan communities it serves. With the passage of landmark transportation reauthorization since 1991, Congress and the President provided significantly increased financial support and flexibility to highway and transit programs. This has greatly improved the ability of state and local decisionmakers to assemble the resources needed to implement the most appropriate mix of modal solutions. These pioneering laws also enabled transit operators to exert greater influence in transportation policy formation and decisionmaking in metropolitan areas, an important means of realizing the benefits of increased program resources and flexibilities.
This report presents the observations, perspectives, and recommendations of a cross-section of transit agencies from large metropolitan areas on how to secure strategic positions in the metropolitan planning process. More importantly, the report can be a guide on how to use those positions to win policy and program support for priority transit services. The challenges to achieving full decisionmaking partnerships in regional settings, the most effective strategies for addressing these challenges, and the rewards of partnerships are presented by transit industry leaders using their own experiences.
The conclusions presented are based upon in-depth interviews with senior officials from transit operators and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in 25 large urbanized areas. To ensure broad applicability of findings, the selected locales were chosen to be representative of a wide range of governmental, environmental, and operating settings.
FindingsMany of the transit operators interviewed are strategic players in their regions and at their MPOs, contributing to decisions affecting economic development and land use, as well as transportation investment priorities. They find opportunities to participate vigorously in, and get impressive policy and program support from, the broad range of MPO activities. However, the incidence and depth of transit interest and involvement in MPO activities is uneven. A number of transit operators report that they are not aware of the potential benefits in broad-based policy support and additional program resources they could realize and, therefore, do not seek MPO participation. Many of those who do participate do so minimally and have not found effective ways to capitalize upon that effort.
Some who seek stronger roles in metropolitan decisionmaking may be overwhelmed by the organizational complexity of MPOs and the detail and time-consuming nature of the MPO’s technical work. This is particularly vexing when their attempts to get involved are met with resistance by others. Although some of the obstacles encountered are formidable and may require legislative remedies, many transit leaders have found effective ways around many of them.
Transit operators who view themselves only as service providers and do not participate in setting the broader policy agenda for their areas may be missing the best opportunities envisioned by congress and the president in recent reauthorization bills. Transit operators may be simply accepting only the program funding that is readily available through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), even though it may be at levels far short of what they need. While this is happening, discussion of modal priorities and investment needs at the MPO policy level may be taking place without transit representation, thereby perpetuating those resource limitations.
Even some transit operators who actively pursue strategic participation in planning processes encounter challenges. And, just as transit agencies range in their level of MPO involvement from “operators only” to strategic partners, the extent to which planning at MPOs is inclusive and open to broader multimodal representation varies. Some MPOs simply administer the federally required process, while others are strategic players — striving for comprehensive inclusion of all modes. Many transit operators believe that inadequate center city representation and other factors limit their voice in their MPO. In addition, some state departments of transportation (DOT) hold the transportation planning and programming reins much tighter than others who share information and cooperate freely with transit agencies and MPOs. Governors and state legislatures also vary widely in the extent to which they encourage transit agencies and MPOs as regional decisionmakers. Local politics may also be an issue, especially where local officials do not support transit.
Finally, many study participants reported that the outcome is only partially in the hands of the transit agency. In fact, the degree to which a “level playing field” actually exists has been the subject of extensive research and commentary. To a large degree, the impact of transit participation may lie collectively in the hands of the MPO, the state DOT, and other planning partners.
On a positive note, the study found that, regardless of the local situation, the most successful transit agencies make the most of the opportunities available to them and create others. They make an effort to establish professional rapport with the various personalities, as they come together in consensusbased decisionmaking. In the end, it is the interplay of these institutions — their policy, professional, and technical linkages — in each metropolitan area that determines the level of transit participation in decisionmaking and, ultimately, of the quality of services provided.
To meet the growing demands for service improvements in the face of increased competition for traditional revenue sources, operators are pursuing supplemental funding through such means as local tax, fee, and bond initiatives. Involvement in metropolitan planning may benefit operators both before and after such ventures. MPO endorsement may bolster advance support for the proposal. If the revenue enhancement proposal is approved, transit operators may be able to exert greater influence in regional decisionmaking because of their ability to bring new funds to the table.
AudienceWhile the primary audience for Transit at the Table is transit general managers and transit senior staff, important messages are included for other key MPO stakeholders. Because the overall effectiveness of an MPO rises and falls with the depth of the decisionmaking partnerships, the suggestions and strategies presented in this report represent significant opportunities for improving current practice.
Benefits of Participation and Strategies for Achievement“You have to convince me that wrestling with my MPO is a better use of my time. There are 100 other things I could be doing.” — General Manager of a Transit Agency
Participation at the MPO can result in many benefits, with some almost immediate and others longer term. Here are ten of the major benefits identified by study participants and selected strategies for achieving them.
Finally, share your planning concerns and questions with your FTA Regional and FHWA Division Office partners.
“Through the transportation technical committee, we make sure our issues are brought forward, discussed, and supported by the region. For example, committee members sent a letter to our congressional delegation [expressing] agreement among technical staff that Interstate MAX is the region’s #1 priority.”
Fred Hansen, General Manager of Tri-Met (Portland, OR)
“Transit and land use advocates [in the Bay Area] successfully advocated with MTC [Metropolitan Transportation Commission] to fund the transit rehabilitation capital shortfall.”Self-Assessment Checklist for Transit Operators
Dorothy Dugger, Deputy General Manager, Bay Area Rapid Transit(San Francisco, CA)
Key findings from the study, Transit at the Table: A Guide to Participation in Metropolitan Decisionmaking, were used
in preparing the following questions for transit operators to use in assessing their profile and participation in metropolitan
planning. The indicators are generic and not exhaustive. As such, these questions should be regarded as only the starting
point for subsequent discussion focused on local issues.
While answering these questions may illuminate issues and opportunities, perhaps the greatest value of this work is
in the resulting discussion among planning partners. The checklist may be applied effectively in facilitated group settings,
as a useful catalyst to discussion, and with less attention to scores. “Yes” responses generally suggest more positive
Transit at the Table experiences.
1. Representation on the MPO Board and Committees | Yes | No |
---|---|---|
|
______ | ______ |
|
______ | ______ |
|
______ | ______ |
|
______ | ______ |
2. Involvement in Planning and Special Studies | ||
|
______ | ______ |
|
______ | ______ |
|
______ | ______ |
|
______ | ______ |
|
______ | ______ |
|
______ | ______ |
|
______ | ______ |
|
______ | ______ |
|
______ | ______ |
|
______ | ______ |
|
______ | ______ |
|
______ | ______ |
3. Involvement in Funding and Implementation. | ||
|
______ | ______ |
|
______ | ______ |
|
______ | ______ |
|
______ | ______ |
|
______ | ______ |
|
______ | ______ |
|
______ | ______ |
|
______ | ______ |
4. Involvement in Planning Certification Reviews. | ||
|
______ | ______ |
|
______ | ______ |
|
______ | ______ |
|
______ | ______ |
|
______ | ______ |