MPO Performance J. Scott Lane | 9.23.2010. Interview Highlights Quick summaries of each of the six interviews conducted thus far.

MPO PerformanceJ. Scott Lane | 9.23.2010

Interview HighlightsQuick summaries of each of the six interviews conducted thus far

Extent of Research

• Conducted Surveys of Six MPOs Thus Far– One Dropped Out (DRCOG) and One MPO Still

Outstanding (Nashville)– Six Completed

• Atlanta Regional Commission• Mid-America Regional Council (Kansas City)• Metropolitan Council (Minneapolis-St. Paul)• SANDAG (San Diego)• Pinellas County (Tampa, Florida)• Capital Area (Austin, Texas)

Atlanta Regional Commission

• Very Large in Area (18 Counties)• Air Quality Influences

– Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA)

– Investigation of Transit and Managed Lane Expansions

– Massive Air Quality Modeling and Conformity Program

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)

• Very Large in Population (3million+)• All in One County• Aggressively Pursuing Sustainability Actions

– Part of a Statewide Initiative– Senate Bill 375 Extended the MPO Responsibilities

(Additional Meetings, Enhanced Fiscal Constraint) to Regulate Sustainability Planning

• Five Technical Committees– policy, transportation/transit, regional planning, public

safety, and borders

Pinellas County (Tampa, FL)

• One-County MPO• Part of a Larger, Regional Planning Effort

– MPO Chairs Coordinating Committee– Six MPOs and One Rural County– Staff Support Rotates through each MPO Every 18 Months– Develop a regional transportation plan, regional priorities, public

engagement plan, and regional citizen’s advisory and technical committees

• Considering Status as a Possible Independent MPO

Capital Area (Austin, TX)

• All or Parts of Five Counties• Very Fast-Growing Population• Perhaps the Most Like the Metrolina MPOs

– Relationship with DOT– Funding Sources– Land Development Patterns and Authority

• Organizational Change– Potential Discussions for Housing and Independence of the

MPO Staff– Moving State Legislators Off the Board (2010)

Mid-America Regional Council (Kansas City, KS/MS)

• Nine Counties and 2million Population• Undertakes a Broad Array of Functions / Activities

– SmartPort– Traffic Signal Operation– Safety Planning– Ridesharing/Commute Options

• Forward-Looking Initiatives– Creating Quality Places (20 Neighborhood Principles)– Imagine KC (Sustainability and Connectedness)

• Works Closely with State Legislative Representatives• Independent MPO

Metropolitan Council(Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN)

• Dominant Force in the State (43% of All Transportation Funding is Directed to this Area)

• Seven Counties, 33 Board members• Strong Statewide Requirements for Comprehensive

Plan Development• “Best DOT/MPO Relationship in the Country”• Fairly Complex Planning Process that Requires Some

Education for New Member/Participants• Combined RPC/MPO Structure

Survey ResultsBroad overview of survey issues, response levels and major results

Survey Response Rates

Atlanta Regional Commission

Metropolitan Council*

Nashville Area MPO*

Mid-America Regional Council

Capital Area (Austin) MPO

Pinellas County MPO

San Diego Association of Governments*

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Response

*Did not participate or participate fully in survey

Respondent Affiliations

Law Enforcement Agency

Limited English Proficiency Advocacy

Freight Industry

Other DOT Office

Minority Advocacy

Mobility Handicapped Advocacy

Low-Income Advocacy

Environmental Advocacy Organization

Airport / Aviation Service Provider

Appointed Official (not elected by popular vote)

Environmental Resource Agency

Public Transportation Provider

DOT Division / District Office

Other (safety, COG staff, regional authority, senior mobility)

Bicycle / Pedestrian Advocacy Group or Committee

MPO Support Staff

County Staff

Member of a MPO Policy Committee (TAC)

Elected Official

Municipal Staff

Member of a MPO Technical Committee

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Comparison of ParticipantsM

PO

Te

chn

ica

l Co

mm

itte

e

MP

O P

olic

y C

om

mitt

ee

En

viro

nm

en

tal R

eso

urc

e A

ge

ncy

Pu

blic

Tra

nsp

ort

atio

n P

rovi

de

r

Air

po

rt /

Avi

atio

n S

erv

ice

Pro

vid

er

Bic

ycle

/ P

ed

est

ria

n A

dvo

cacy

Fre

igh

t In

du

stry

DO

T D

ivis

ion

/ D

istr

ict

Off

ice

Oth

er

DO

T O

ffic

e

Ele

cte

d O

ffic

ial

Ap

po

inte

d O

ffic

ial (

no

t e

lect

ed

)

La

w E

nfo

rce

me

nt

Ag

en

cy

Min

ori

ty A

dvo

cacy

Lo

w-I

nco

me

Ad

voca

cy

Lim

ited

En

glis

h P

rofic

ien

cy A

dvo

cacy

Mo

bili

ty H

an

dic

ap

pe

d A

dvo

cacy

Mu

nic

ipa

l Sta

ff

Co

un

ty S

taff

MP

O S

up

po

rt S

taff

En

viro

nm

en

tal A

dvo

cacy

Org

an

iza

tion

Oth

er

-5.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

Metrolina Region

National Peers

Respondent Affiliations

Res

pons

e R

ate

Performance OverviewL

oc

ati

ng

an

d im

ple

me

nti

ng

ne

w r

ev

en

u...

Na

tio

na

l Pe

ers

Co

ord

ina

tio

n w

ith

ou

r s

tate

de

pa

rtm

en

t ...

Na

tio

na

l Pe

ers

Co

ord

ina

tio

n w

ith

loc

al g

ov

ern

me

nt

ag

e...

Na

tio

na

l Pe

ers

Ed

uc

ati

ng

an

d e

ng

ag

ing

th

e p

ub

lic o

n t

...

Na

tio

na

l Pe

ers

Ad

he

rin

g t

o f

ed

era

l an

d lo

ca

l re

qu

ire

m...

Na

tio

na

l Pe

ers

Ad

dre

ss

ing

air

qu

alit

y is

su

es

Na

tio

na

l Pe

ers

Co

ord

ina

tin

g e

ffic

ien

t re

gio

na

l la

nd

us

e...

Na

tio

na

l Pe

ers

Co

ord

ina

tio

n w

ith

ne

arb

y m

etr

op

olit

an

a...

Na

tio

na

l Pe

ers

Performance GapDoing Now

Survey Issues

• A Perceptual Assessment of Performance• Dominating Participation from MARC• Lack of or Under-Participation from METC,

SANDAG, and Nashville• Provides Some Insights

– Performance Gap Perception– “Spread” Equals Performance Diversity– Consistent Lower/Higher Scores for Some Issues (Air

Quality and Engaging the Public)

Individual Performance ComparisonsEach issue is arranged by desire to perform and current performance

Locating & Implementing New Revenue Sources

Met

roli

na

Atl

anta

Reg

iona

l Com

mis

sion

Cap

ital

Are

a (A

usti

n) M

PO

Met

ropo

lita

n C

ounc

il

Mid

-Am

eric

a R

egio

nal C

ounc

il

Pin

ella

s C

ount

y M

PO

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

MPOs Should Do WellOur MPO is Effective at Now

Coordination With Our State DOT

MPOs Should Do WellOur MPO is Effective at Now

Met

roli

na

Atl

anta

Reg

iona

l Com

mis

sion

Cap

ital

Are

a (A

usti

n) M

PO

Met

ropo

lita

n C

ounc

il

Mid

-Am

eric

a R

egio

nal C

ounc

il

Pin

ella

s C

ount

y M

PO

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

Coordination with Local Government Agencies

Met

roli

na

Atl

anta

Reg

iona

l Com

mis

sion

Cap

ital

Are

a (A

usti

n) M

PO

Met

ropo

lita

n C

ounc

il

Mid

-Am

eric

a R

egio

nal C

ounc

il

Pin

ella

s C

ount

y M

PO

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

MPOs Should Do WellOur MPO is Effective at Now

Educating and Engaging the Public

Met

roli

na

Atl

anta

Reg

iona

l Com

mis

sion

Cap

ital

Are

a (A

usti

n) M

PO

Met

ropo

lita

n C

ounc

il

Mid

-Am

eric

a R

egio

nal C

ounc

il

Pin

ella

s C

ount

y M

PO

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

MPOs Should Do WellOur MPO is Effective at Now

Adhering To Federal and Local Requirements

Met

roli

na

Atl

anta

Reg

iona

l Com

mis

sion

Cap

ital

Are

a (A

usti

n) M

PO

Met

ropo

lita

n C

ounc

il

Mid

-Am

eric

a R

egio

nal C

ounc

il

Pin

ella

s C

ount

y M

PO

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

MPOs Should Do WellOur MPO is Effective at Now

Addressing Air Quality Issues

MPOs Should Do WellOur MPO is Effective at Now

Met

roli

na

Atl

anta

Reg

iona

l Com

mis

sion

Cap

ital

Are

a (A

usti

n) M

PO

Met

ropo

lita

n C

ounc

il

Mid

-Am

eric

a R

egio

nal C

ounc

il

Pin

ella

s C

ount

y M

PO

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

Coordinating Efficient Regional Land Use and Transportation Choice to Reduce Costs

Atl

anta

Reg

iona

l Com

mis

sion

Cap

ital

Are

a (A

usti

n) M

PO

Met

roli

na

Met

ropo

lita

n C

ounc

il

Mid

-Am

eric

a R

egio

nal C

ounc

il

Pin

ella

s C

ount

y M

PO

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

MPOs Should Do WellOur MPO is Effective at Now

Coordination with Nearby Metropolitan and Rural Planning Organizations

MPOs Should Do WellOur MPO is Effective at Now

Atl

anta

Reg

iona

l Com

mis

sion

Cap

ital

Are

a (A

usti

n) M

PO

Met

roli

na

Met

ropo

lita

n C

ounc

il

Mid

-Am

eric

a R

egio

nal C

ounc

il

Pin

ella

s C

ount

y M

PO

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

Next StepsLessons Learned, Contents of Draft Report and Roll-Out

Lessons Learned: FundingPeers• Most of the MPOs studied

have a better perception of their level of control over funding streams

• Direct: Tax revenue streams allocated by the MPO

• Indirect: Extraordinary levels of contact with legislative bodies and State DOT

Metrolina Potential Actions

1. Formulate a Legislative Session annually to develop a joint, regional program of priorities and talking points, supporting information, etc.

2. Establish quarterly meetings with State DOT to assess progress on financing and implementing projects

Purpose: Identify, Allocate, and Manage Transportation Finances

Lessons Learned: Decision-MakingPeers• Most MPOs have larger

staffs and operate under state laws that speak more directly to planning requirements than in N.C.

• Weighted voting, arcane quorum requirements are generally OUT

• Technical advisory committees, group representation are IN

Metrolina Potential Actions

1. Consider non-traditional committees and expanding membership on existing committees to include school boards, transit, freight, resource agencies

2. Ultimately, a single, independent regional authority would provide more leverage to tackle major transportation issues

Purpose: Streamline Operations while Creating Leverage

Lessons Learned: CollaborationPeers• Personalities are important;

strategic hires to work with key external agencies are not uncommon

• Leveling of the playing field can be created by having a dual voting system (e.g., SANDAG) with both simple and weighted majority required

Metrolina Potential Actions

1. For any regional structure, consider formal weighted/unweighted voting for every action

2. Establish a formal interlocal agreement outlining any regional structure or ongoing regional action

Purpose: Ensuring “Voice” and Regional Decision-Making Power

Lessons Learned: CommunicationPeers• Not many MPOs thought

that they were doing an excellent job communicating with the public

• Dedicate a PIO position• Fewer Public Meetings• CAC: Commonplace, but a

lot of work and effort• Mini-Grants

Metrolina Potential Actions

1. Get citizen representation on all boards

2. Exhibit caution with developing a singular citizen’s advisory committee (cost, role, authority, etc.)

3. Dedicate resources to a common PIO position(s) to serve all four MPOs

Purpose: Creating an Effective, Two-Way Planning Process

Lessons Learned: Regional PlanningPeers

• All MPOs studied have some form of regional planning that involves land use effects on transportation

• Some have a state mandate (e.g., Metropolitan Council, SANDAG) that partially obviates the need for special studies

• Parallel efforts not entirely driven by the MPO also influence the transportation plans

Metrolina Potential Actions

Develop a regional planning framework that identifies regional transportation corridors and facilities; major deficiencies; and land use development options to increase alternatives to and mitigation of congestion. Identify update periods and regional-scale funding priorities to start an ongoing dialogue.

Purpose: Creating meaningful regional actions

Next Steps: Reporting

• Contents of Draft Report– Cross-Tabulation Ideas

• Break Out Respondent Types?• Separate Out MARC from Other MPOs?

• Degree and Content of Recommendations– Possible Solutions for Low-Scoring Areas– Impact of Pending Federal Reauthorization and State Actions– Bigger Range and Specific Guidance on Public Engagement Techniques– Staged Coordination / Consolidation

• Stage One: Strengthen Regional Body• Stage Two: Develop Regional Transportation Plan• Stage Three: Possible Organization Changes

Next Steps: Presentation

• When: October 28, 2010 @ 8AM• How: Presentation + Forum• Advance Materials and Release of Report• Summary of Report and Contents