Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program

- Peer Exchange Report -

Capacity Building Program Best Practices

I. Summary

The objective of this exchange was to expose Pennsylvania metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), rural planning organizations (RPOs), and State transportation entities to the Tampa Bay, FL, region’s success with collaborative transportation planning and programming in a large metropolitan region with numerous MPOs. The structural basis for this achievement was the formal establishment and legal empowerment of an interjurisdictional coordinating committee among these organizations.

The format for this exchange was a 1.5-hour presentation made during a two-day statewide meeting in Gettysburg, PA. Discussion focused on the cooperative and collaborative nature of the Florida relationships, how these mechanisms have evolved, and the benefits that they have demonstrated.

II. Background

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PENNDOT) has identified a number of areas in which MPO/RPO cooperation and coordination could be improved. The 2000 Census revealed that many of Pennsylvania’s metropolitan areas are expanding, and some are overlapping to a greater extent than many regions had expected. Commuter sheds are also intertwined among many of Pennsylvania’s planning partner counties and regions, creating interjurisdictional planning challenges.

PENNDOT believed that, in an ideal situation, these expanding and overlapping regions would work together as one large region with many smaller distinct MPOs and RPOs: transportation demand modeling and air quality emissions modeling would be performed on a single regional model, and MPO and RPO staffs and management would meet together regularly to ensure that they were all working in concert for what is best for the larger region. Because the MPOs in the Tampa Bay, FL, region have successfully forged such a cooperative and coordinated working relationship, PENNDOT invited the Florida MPO representatives to address their Pennsylvania peers regarding the positive approaches that have made Tampa Bay’s intergovernmental planning initiative so effective.

The Florida peer experts were Ms. Lucie Ayer and Ms. Sarah Ward. Ms. Ayer is Executive Director of the Hillsborough County MPO, and Chairperson – Staff Directors of the Florida Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council. Ms. Ward is Transportation Planning Administrator for the Pinellas County Planning Department, and a member of the Pinellas County MPO’s Technical Coordinating Committee and Traffic Signal & Median Control Committee.

Spencer Stevens, Transportation Planning Team Leader in the FHWA Pennsylvania Division Office, introduced the peer experts and chaired the session.

III. Perspectives and Issues

A. The West Central Florida Chairs Coordinating Committee

Ms. Ward described the operations of the West Central Florida Chairs Coordinating Committee (CCC; http://www.ccctransportation.org/), a partnership in regional and local planning that has been forged among the MPOs of seven west-central Florida counties (Hillsborough, Pinellas, Sarasota/Manatee, Polk, Pasco, Hernando, and Citrus) in the greater Tampa Bay region.

Initially, the CCC served the purpose of information sharing among the MPOs, and could list regionally desirable transportation projects for programming purposes, but did not have statutory authority either to prioritize or fund those projects. In 2000, the CCC received this authority under a State legislative mandate.

The CCC meets quarterly to develop regional solutions to transportation problems and to ensure a consistent planning approach among the MPOs. The CCC is responsible for the Regional Element of the Long-Range Transportation Plan; the regional congestion management system; the coordinated air quality management planning process; regional data sharing and mapping; the coordinated project selection process; and regional conflict resolution to assure that the preceding responsibilities are met. Each of these processes was described.

One key CCC subcommittee of particular relevance to the interests of the Pennsylvania participants is the West Central Florida Air Quality Coordinating Committee (WCFAQCC; www.ccctransportation.org). Subcommittee membership comprises the full range of regional stakeholder interests in air quality compliance and its benefits: air pollution control programs; transit agencies; regional planning entities (MPO and RPOs); State agencies (the Florida Department of Environmental Protection [FDEP] and the Florida Department of Transportation [FDOT]); private-sector firms (electric companies and solid waste disposal companies); non-profit organizations; and educational institutions.

The purpose and goals of the WCFAQCC are to:

• Develop annual air quality goals and objectives for the region;
• Promote air quality measures;
• Coordinate among federal, State, and local stakeholder groups;
• Educate and inform the public about air quality issues;
• Promote consistency in evaluation methods and mitigation practices; and
• Review proposed legislation.

Ms. Ward also described the specifics of how the CCC operates as a regional entity in relation to its member MPOs. The chairmanship and staff support rotate among the MPOs. Joint Committees and Task Forces are constituted as necessary; regional recommendations are placed on the agendas of the member MPOs, and the MPOs forward actions to the CCC chairperson. Routine assignments are borne by all CCC members. A regional set-aside in the Unified Planning Work Programs (UPWPs) of the member MPOs is used to fund projects listed by the CCC.

Ms. Ayer explained the underlying tenets of the CCC:

1. Individual MPOs within a region may have substantially differing needs and priorities because of their differing size and urban/rural proportions.
2. Not all transportation issues are local, and sharing responsibility for planning in the face of truly regional challenges is also essential to the well-being of the region’s localities.

The basic framework of technical modeling under the CCC is therefore based on the regional entity; after the regional plan is formulated, local issues are reserved to the MPOs. The CCC and its constituent MPOs believe that this two-tier system creates room for the consideration of local issues that would be lost were the region’s MPOs merged into a single, large regional entity.

B. Coordinating for CMAQ Project Selection

In the second peer presentation in the session, Ms. Ayer addressed the experiences of the Hillsborough MPO and the Environmental Protection Committee of Hillsborough County in coordinating for CMAQ project selection.

During annual revision of the Transportation Improvement Program, a Project Review Workgroup (made up of the MPO, the local air quality agency, the FDEP, and the FDOT District Office) follows a six-step evaluation process:

1. The Workgroup notifies and promotes the funding opportunity to municipalities, transit agencies, Transportation Management Organizations (TMOs), etc. The CMAQ Application Packet and Checklist are posted to the MPO website. The Application Packet presents the project eligibility criteria in detail, lists the points that must be addressed in the proposal, and lays out the criteria to be used by the Workgroup for prioritizing projects.
   
2. Workgroup members provide pre-submittal technical assistance to prospective applicants.
   
   
3. MPO staff and the CMAQ Workgroup make the eligibility determination of the applications submitted by local agencies. Eligible applications are forwarded to the MPO’s Policy Committee, Citizens Advisory Committee, and Technical Advisory Committee.
   
   
4. The MPO staff and Workgroup prioritize and come to consensus on applicant projects, based on the evaluation criteria, Workgroup rankings, and MPO staff rankings. The evaluation criteria are:
   
   
   1. Projects that remove vehicles from the road
   2. Projects that reduce delay
   3. Outreach projects that change driver behavior
   4. Projects with the best cost-effectiveness
   5. Project with air quality benefits realized within three years
   6. Projects in the Long-Range Plan
      
5. The Staff and Workgroup present their consensus draft priority list to the MPO’s Policy Committee, Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for consideration; these committees may revise the priorities after debate. The revised draft list is presented to the MPO Board for further discussion as necessary and vote.
   
   Local experience with this process has shown that the prioritization of projects can be challenging:
   
   
   • The applicants may disagree over the ranking assigned their project, which will become evident during Committee deliberations.
   • The MPO staff and Workgroup priorities may differ, making the achievement of consensus strenuous.
   • The MPO Board may change the priorities before ratifying the final list.
     
6. Accountability. The CMAQ Workgroup evaluates completed projects for effectiveness; projects are expected to maintain logs and other records that may be requested during this evaluation.

The Hillsborough County MPO successfully sought CMAQ funds to support the construction and first three years of operation of the new Historic Streetcar. The area also has a number of other successfully implemented transportation projects funded by CMAQ grants, including major ITS projects, low-cost corridor improvements, and bicycle trails.

C. Additional Discussion: Public Involvement and Serving the Disadvantaged

Public Involvement. Ms. Ayer also discussed regional approaches to public involvement, both as a regional challenge and in relation to transit planning and programming.

Each MPO in the Region has its own public involvement program and a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) to encourage public participation in the transportation planning process. All meetings are open to the public.

Members of each MPO’s Citizens Advisory Committee serve on a joint CAC that advises the Chairs’ Coordinating Committee. The Joint CAC meets quarterly to discuss transportation issues such as inter-county commuting, major roadway projects, passenger transit service, freight mobility, and development of a system of multi-use trails.

By its nature, regional public involvement is more complicated. In the speakers’ experience, it is essential that MPOs and regional planning collaborations help the public to understand how transportation works, and why regional thinking is critically important. Having local public support is the foundation for all successful planning initiatives. Ms. Ayer discussed a number of effective approaches to regional public involvement:

• The CCC is now stages transportation fairs at community events in four of the region’s counties as part of the Plan update process. The CCC also organizes workshops to pull in local business interests.
  
  
• In an additional effort to engage the business community, an MPO staff member with a journalism background conducts "key leader" interviews, asking selected local merchants what their highest transportation priorities are, and how transportation impacts them, their communities, and their businesses. These interviews are published in the MPO newsletters.
  
  
• The location of the quarterly CCC Chairs and Policy Committees is rotated. Whichever MPO is hosting publicizes the meetings through the local media, and on CCC’s and the hosting MPO’s websites, to draw public participation.

One specific example of successful public involvement is the effort launched by the CCC to address problems created by the fact that there is no unified regional transit system in the Tampa Bay area. The systems serving the area have different fare structures, and different qualifications standards for their bicycle-on-bus programs. These operational discontinuities are a nuisance for travelers-especially cyclists-wanting to use intersystem public transit.

Because encouraging use of public transit is important to congestion management and the improvement of air quality, the CCC held transportation fairs to involve the public in an effort that aligned the separate systems to better meet intercity transportation needs, and thus encourage ridership. Among the regional improvements was the institution of route networking so that passengers on one service can now link up directly with other services. These transportation fairs also provided an opportunity for community participants to better understand the benefits of regionwide planning.

Transportation for the Disadvantaged. All counties in this region offer low-cost paratransit services for people who qualify as "transportation disadvantaged" – people whose income or physical disability severely limits access to transportation. The CCC brought transit and social service agencies together to identify effective means of service delivery and the range of needs in the disadvantaged population. CCC publications promote the availability of paratransit and provide service contact information for prospective customers. In Hillsborough County, MPO staff used Geographic Information System (GIS) data to identify minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities, and developed special outreach techniques, including visiting local churches and special community functions, to promote the availability of paratransit services.

Local Agency Perspective

Many of the Pennsylvania MPOs and RPOs are county-level organizations, as are Florida MPOs. The participants were particularly interested in hearing more about the Tampa Bay region’s public involvement efforts, and connections between land use and transportation planning.

The Pennsylvania participants were intrigued with the Tampa Bay region’s collaborative regional planning and collaboration in the use of CMAQ funds. They were also interested in how the Tampa Bay region’s committees are structured; how key activities (long-range planning and air quality conformity) are conducted; and how the MPOs contribute FHWA Planning (PL) funds to regionwide efforts.

The Pennsylvania audience also had a number of questions regarding the role of a State mandate enabling the CCC’s regionwide operations-in particular, the extent to which a legal mandate was needed to assure the participation of the region’s individual MPOs in collective regional activities. Ms. Ayer explained that the MPOs in the Tampa Bay region voluntarily established the CCC in 1992, in response to pressure to merge existing MPOs in expanding urban areas, and then worked with the region’s legislative delegation to codify the arrangement in State statute in 2000.

State DOT Perspective

PENNDOT shared its experience with offering guidance on collaborative financing for the regions during the 2005 STIP update; described the extensive Long Range Plan update, and presented the Environmental Justice Strategic Plan.

IV. Lessons Learned

The Pennsylvania participants were impressed with the many unexpected similarities between Pennsylvania and Florida’s transportation challenges and planning processes (large aging population, size of programs, decentralized DOTs, etc.). During informal networking sessions, a number of the MPO and RPO representatives spoke with the Tampa Bay guests about the West Central Florida Chairs Coordinating Committee.

The primary lessons from the peer presentation of West Florida’s experience with regional coordination were:

1. Regional coordination of transportation planning in West Florida has greatly improved, because:
   
   
   • Potential conflicts are resolved by the Directors
   • Data sharing is improved, and
   • The CCC can obtain more appropriate technical information, in that data needs are defined regionally.
     
2. Operating regionally creates challenges in public participation and advisory committee scheduling because of the larger total number of meetings and increased travel distances involved. The CCC has made use of video and teleconferencing to partially mitigate the travel problem, with technical support provided by the University of South Florida’s Center for Urban Transportation Research.
3. The cost to each MPO of doing business has increased because of the overlay of regional on local decisionmaking. Staff face an additional workload and related deadlines; the MPOs have absorbed these costs, along with those associated with additional hires and consultant fees. For example, the Pinellas County MPO has added one staff person, 50% of whose time is dedicated to public involvement, including website management, and the remaining 50% to ITS planning. The additional meetings and travel expenses increase the bottom line, as well. Because regional efforts have taken some of the burden off FDOT to address the same issues, the CCC has been able to obtain a contribution from FDOT.

V. For More Information

VI. Attachments

1. Agenda-Fall 2003 Planning Partners’ Meeting, Gettysburg, PA
   
   
2. Attendees List