Metropolitan Transportation Planning

Congressional research reportFeb 3, 2010

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

/name redacted/

Specialist in Transportation Policy

February 3, 2010

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

R41068

CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

Metropolitan Transportation Planning

Summary

Federal law requires state and local governments to designate a metropolitan planning

organization (MPO) in each urbanized area with a population of 50,000 or more to help plan

surface transportation infrastructure and services. There are currently 381 MPOs nationwide.

Despite some strengthening of their authority over the years, MPOs have generally remained

subordinate to state departments of transportation (DOTs) in the planning and selecting

(“programming”) of projects using federal surface transportation funds. Moreover, it can be

argued that at the metropolitan level MPOs are subordinate to local governments that own and

operate many elements of the transportation system, and also control land use planning and

zoning.

Because of the perceived weakness of MPOs, some in the transportation community have argued

that they ought to be given much more power over the planning and programming of projects

using federal surface transportation funds. Some of these observers go so far as to suggest that

federal policies and programs in a number of areas, including transportation, housing, and the

environment, need to be coordinated on a metropolitan scale, and that MPOs are the

organizational venue where this should occur. Others argue that the relationship between state

government, local government, and MPOs is well-balanced and should not be changed. A third

view is that metropolitan transportation planning is controlled by planners who often harbor anticar views, and consequently, MPOs can be actually detrimental to well-functioning metropolitan

transportation systems. In this view, MPOs should be abolished or, at the very least, have their

functions significantly curtailed.

Surface transportation programs were authorized under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU or SAFETEA; P.L. 109-59)

covering the period FY2005 through FY2009. In lieu of a new multi-year reauthorization that is

still being considered, Congress has extended these programs and their funding several times.

Reauthorization of the surface transportation programs provides an opportunity for Congress to

reexamine policies related to MPOs and the metropolitan planning process. This report discusses

several issues that Congress may want to consider: the authority of MPOs to plan and program

funds; representation and participation in MPOs; MPO funding and technical capacity; and

implementation of livability initiatives. It may also want to consider a number of issues having to

do with planning requirements such as the need for a long-range plan, the proper scale of

planning, and the incorporation of freight transportation interests. The report begins with a brief

description of the metropolitan transportation planning process.

Congressional Research Service

Metropolitan Transportation Planning

Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................1

The Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process ......................................................................2

Issues for Congress .....................................................................................................................5

Decision-Making Authority of MPOs Relative to State DOTs................................................6

Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 2009 ................................................................7

Other Perspectives on MPO Authority.............................................................................8

Representation and Participation in MPOs........................................................................... 10

MPO Funding and Technical Capacity ................................................................................ 12

MPOs and “Livability/Sustainability” Initiatives ................................................................. 13

Legislative Proposals .................................................................................................... 14

Climate Change Mitigation, Compact Cities, and Transportation ................................... 16

Other Issues with Transportation Planning Requirements .................................................... 16

Long-Range Planning.................................................................................................... 16

Freight Transportation................................................................................................... 17

Geographic Scale .......................................................................................................... 17

Conclusion................................................................................................................................ 18

Figures

Figure 1. Federal Funds Apportioned for Metropolitan Transportation Planning,

FY2000-FY2009......................................................................................................................6

Contacts

Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 19

Congressional Research Service

Metropolitan Transportation Planning

Introduction

Since the early 1970s, federal law has required state and local governments to designate

metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in urbanized areas with a population of 50,000 or

more to help plan surface transportation infrastructure and services.1 There are currently 381

MPOs nationwide, of which 43 represent areas of 1 million residents or more (large MPOs), 139

represent areas of between 200,000 and 1 million (medium MPOs), and 199 represent areas of

between 50,000 and 200,000 (small MPOs).2 The foremost rationale for MPOs and metropolitan

transportation planning is that the metropolitan scale is the level at which most economic

activities, including commuting and, therefore, local highway and transit systems, are organized. 3

These “metropolitan economies” transcend local government and sometimes state boundaries,

and, as some observers have argued, are often too far removed from state capitals for state

governments to successfully oversee them. This is particularly an issue in places where a

metropolitan area is spread over more than one state.

Despite some strengthening of their authority over the years, MPOs have generally remained

subordinate to state departments of transportation (DOTs) in the planning and selecting

(“programming”) of projects using federal surface transportation funds. Moreover, it can be

argued that at the metropolitan level MPOs are subordinate to local governments that own and

operate many elements of the transportation system, and also control land use planning and

zoning.4 Because of this perceived weakness, some in the transportation community have argued

that MPOs ought to be given much more power over the planning and programming of projects

using federal surface transportation funds. Some even go so far as to suggest that federal policies

and programs in a number of areas, including transportation, housing, and the environment, need

to be coordinated at the metropolitan scale, and that MPOs are the organizational venue where

this should occur. Others argue that the relationship between state government, local government,

and MPOs is well-balanced and should not be changed. A third view is that metropolitan

transportation planning is controlled by planners who often harbor anti-car views, and,

consequently, MPOs can be actually detrimental to well-functioning metropolitan transportation

systems. In this view, MPOs should be abolished or, at the very least, have their functions

significantly curtailed.5

An urbanized area is defined as consisting of “contiguous, densely settled census block groups and census blocks that

meet minimum population density requirements, along with adjacent densely settled census blocks that together

encompass a population of at least 50,000 people.” U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, “Urban Area

Criteria for Census 2000,” 69 Federal Register 51, pp. 11663-11670. Metropolitan (statistical) areas are county-based

geographical units that typically include a large, densely settled central county together with surrounding counties that

are functionally linked with the core county as defined by commuting patterns. Consequently, unlike an urbanized area,

a metropolitan statistical area will typically encompass both urban and rural land within its borders. See Office of

Management and Budget, “Standards for Defining Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas,” 65 Federal

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Options Exist to Enhance

Transportation Planning Capacity and Federal Oversight, GAO-09-868, September 2009, http://www.gao.gov/

new.items/d09868.pdf.

Peter Calthorpe and William Fulton, The Regional City: Planning for the End of Sprawl (Washington, DC: Island

Press, 2001).

Genevieve Giuliano, “Where Is the ‘Region’ In Regional Transportation Planning?,” in Up Against the Sprawl, ed.

Jennifer Wolch, Manuel Pastor, Jr., Peter Dreier (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2004).

See, for example, Randal O’Toole, “Roadmap to Gridlock: The Failure of Long-Range Metropolitan Transportation

Planning,” Cato Institute, Policy Analysis, no. 617 (May 27, 2008), http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-617.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Metropolitan Transportation Planning

For the period FY2005 though FY2009, surface transportation programs were authorized by the

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEALU or SAFETEA; P.L. 109-59). In lieu of a new multi-year reauthorization that is still being

considered, Congress has extended these programs and their funding several times.

Reauthorization of the surface transportation programs provides an opportunity for Congress to

reexamine policies related to MPOs and the metropolitan planning process.6 Changes are also

being considered as part of climate change legislation. This report discusses several issues that

Congress may want to consider: the authority of MPOs to plan and program funds; representation

and participation in MPOs; MPO technical capacity; and implementation of

livability/sustainability initiatives. It also considers a number of other planning issues including

the requirements for a long-range plan, the proper scale of planning, and the incorporation of

freight transportation needs. These issues are discussed in detail below after a brief description of

the metropolitan transportation planning process.

The Metropolitan Transportation Planning Process

The federal requirement for transportation planning in urban areas, although not MPOs, dates to

the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962 (P.L. 87-866), which called for “a continuing

comprehensive transportation planning process carried on cooperatively by states and local

communities.”7 MPOs themselves have been required as part of the transportation planning

process in urbanized areas since the enactment of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 (P.L. 9387) (23 U.S.C. §134; 49 U.S.C. §5303). In general, the designation of the MPO, the design of its

organizational structure, and voting representation within the MPO are to be agreed upon by the

governor of the state and the general-purpose local governments of the area. In urbanized areas of

200,000 residents or more, designated as transportation management areas (TMAs), federal law

requires that the MPO must consist of local elected officials, officials from public agencies that

operate major modes of transportation (transit agencies, port authorities, etc.), and appropriate

state officials (23 U.S.C. §134(d)(2); 49 U.S.C. §5303(d)(2)). Typically, these officials form a

policy board in which some members have voting rights and others do not. Day-to-day operations

of an MPO are usually managed by an executive director appointed by the board, and a staff

composed largely of professional planners. The number of staff supporting the work of the MPO

is typically very small. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently found the average

(mean) number of full-time and part-time staff working for small MPOs was 3.2 and 1.4,

respectively. For medium MPOs the averages were 8.2 full time and 1.5 part time staff, and for

large MPOs the averages were 49.3 full time and 3.9 part time.8 With few permanent staff,

smaller MPOs often hire consultants to do technical work, rely on help from the state DOT, or

both.

The two major requirements of every MPO are the preparation of a long-range, multi-modal

Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) covering a minimum period of 20 years, and a

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) covering four years. The MTP must be updated at

least every five years, or four years in areas with air quality problems, and the TIP must be

updated at least every four years. The MTP is required to include an assessment of transportation

CRS Report R40780, Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress: Summary of Selected

Major Provisions, coordinated by (name redacted).

P.L. 87-866, Section 134.

GAO, 2009, p. 12.

Congressional Research Service

Metropolitan Transportation Planning

supply and demand in the metropolitan area; operational and infrastructure investment strategies

to improve the condition and performance of the system; estimates of transportation’s effects on

environmental quality and how these effects can be mitigated; and a financial plan that shows

how the MTP can be implemented. Two important components of developing the long-range plan

are preparation of travel demand forecasts and estimates of other inputs and outputs such as

future land use patterns and pollutant emissions. 9

The four-year TIP is a priority list of proposed federally supported highway and transit projects

and strategies. Federal law requires that the list of projects and strategies must be “fiscally

constrained” in that the program must be supported by reasonable estimates of available funding.

To put it another way, the TIP must include a priority list of projects and strategies over the

coming four years that have a reasonable chance of being accomplished with available funding.

The TIP must be approved by both the MPO and the governor (although the actual approval is

often delegated to the state DOT), and be consistent with the MTP. Federally supported projects

must be selected from the approved TIP. Large and medium MPOs, those in urbanized areas of

200,000 residents or more, have the authority to select projects from the TIP in consultation with

the state and public transit operators, except projects carried out on the National Highway System

(NHS), or under the Bridge Program and Interstate Maintenance (IM) Program. In those cases,

the state DOT has the authority to select projects from the TIP in cooperation with the MPO.

MPOs in small urban areas, however, have less authority than those in larger areas. This is

because power to select highway projects from the TIP is given to the state and power to select

transit projects is given to the designated recipients of public transit funding. Project selection by

the state or transit system, however, must be done in cooperation with the MPO, a stronger

requirement than consultation.

The transportation plans of a metropolitan area must be consistent with transportation plans that

are required at the state level. Moreover, in metropolitan areas that are in nonattainment or

maintenance status for air quality,10 transportation plans must be in conformity with the state

implementation plan (SIP) required to bring the area into compliance with air pollution

standards.11 The local MPO policy board is responsible for making a conformity determination

between the regional transportation plan and regional air quality plan. This determination must be

made at least every four years, when a MTP or TIP is updated or amended, or within 24 months

after a SIP or SIP revision is approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. 12

Some argue that development of the TIP, also known as project “programming,” is the most

important activity of an MPO because it provides the potential for setting budgetary priorities.13

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, The

Transportation Planning Process: Key Issues, FHWA-HEP-07-039, Washington, DC, 2007,

http://www.planning.dot.gov/documents/briefingbook/bbook_07.pdf.

A nonattainment area is an area designated by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act (CAA)

as not meeting the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standards for one or more designated pollutants. A

maintenance area is an area that was previously designated nonattainment and subsequently redesignated to attainment

subject to the development of a maintenance plan required under the CAA.

For more information, see CRS Report RL32106, Transportation Conformity Under the Clean Air Act: In Need of

Reform?, by (name redacted).

U.S. Department of Transportation, The Transportation Planning Process: Key Issues, 2007.

Paul G. Lewis and Mary Sprague, Federal Transportation Policy and the Role of Metropolitan Planning

Organizations in California, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, CA, April 1997, p. 8,

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_497PLR.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Metropolitan Transportation Planning

Prior to enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA; P.L.

102-240), a TIP did not need to be fiscally constrained, thus, a common complaint was that such

documents were long “wish lists” from which the state could choose the projects to fund. By

contrast, since ISTEA, MPOs, particularly those in areas designated as TMAs, have had a say in

developing the TIP and in selecting projects from the TIP to be implemented. Moreover, ISTEA is

also said to have empowered MPOs by giving them primary authority over Surface

Transportation Program (STP) funds designated for projects in specific urban areas, so-called

“suballocated” funds, and, to a lesser extent, authority over Congestion Mitigation and Air

Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funds.

The planning area for which the MPO is generally responsible is the urbanized area and the area

likely to become urbanized over the next 20 years, and may, therefore, encompass the entire

metropolitan statistical area.14 The planning process is required to be multi-modal, and is to

include consideration of a range of factors: economic competitiveness; safety; security;

accessibility and mobility of people and freight; environmental quality, energy conservation,

quality of life, and consistency with growth and economic development patterns; intermodal

connectivity; efficient management and operation of the system; and preservation of the existing

system (23 U.S.C. §134(h)(1); 49 U.S.C. §5303(h)(1)). In areas designated as TMAs, planning

must include a congestion management process that encompasses travel demand reduction and

operational management strategies (23 U.S.C. §134(k)(3); 49 U.S.C. §5303(k)(3)). 15 In

nonattainment areas “federal funds may not be advanced ... for any highway project that will

result in a significant increase in the carrying capacity for single-occupant vehicles unless the

project is addressed through a congestion management process” (23 U.S.C. §134(m)(1); 49

U.S.C. §5303(m)(1)).

The metropolitan planning process, in areas designated as TMAs, must be certified by the

Secretary of Transportation as being carried out according to federal law. Working together,

FHWA and FTA perform certification reviews. Certification is required not less often than once

every four years. Certification is based on the way in which the planning is carried out, not the

success or failure of the projects and strategies ultimately employed. Among other things, a

certification review will examine the participation of interested parties in the planning process.

Federal law requires that at a minimum, stakeholders, including freight shippers, public transit

operators, and the general public, be given reasonable opportunity to comment on the

transportation plan. To that end, MPOs are required to develop a public participation plan. If

federal certification is not granted, the Secretary may withhold 20% of highway and transit

project funds attributable to the area.

In addition to the activities prescribed by federal law, some MPOs carry out other activities that

may be given to them by state or local government. These include land-use planning, project

implementation, transit operations, and environmental planning in addition to air quality

As noted earlier, metropolitan statistical areas are county-based geographical units that typically comprise a large,

densely settled central county and the surrounding counties that are functionally linked with the core county as defined

by commuting patterns. Consequently, unlike an urbanized area, a metropolitan statistical area will typically encompass

both urban and rural land within its borders.

Travel demand reduction strategies include incentives to ride public transit, carpool, and work at home. Operational

management strategies can include incident management, transit priority, and traveler information, among others. For

more information, see U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, An Interim Guidebook on

the Congestion Management Process in Metropolitan Transportation Planning, FHWA-HOP-08-008, Washington,

DC, February 2008, http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/cmpguidebook/cmpguidebook.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Metropolitan Transportation Planning

emissions analysis. According to GAO, 70% of MPOs have some land use planning

responsibilities, 37% implement projects, 21% do additional environmental planning such as

water quality planning, and 16% operate transit service. 16

Although metropolitan transportation planning and MPOs are supported with resources from

federal, state, and local government, federal funding typically provides a majority of that support.

About 80% of MPOs get a majority of planning funds from the federal government.17 Federal

funding for metropolitan transportation planning is predominantly provided through a 1.25%

deduction of federal highway funding authorized for five highway programs: IM, NHS, Bridge,

STP, and CMAQ. These deducted funds are apportioned to each state as metropolitan planning

funds based primarily on the ratio of urbanized population in a state to the total urbanized

population, although every state receives at least 0.5% of the total nationwide apportionment.

Federal metropolitan planning funds apportioned to a state are distributed to individual MPOs

based on a formula developed by the state in consultation with the MPOs and approved by

FHWA. In addition to planning funds apportioned in this way, NHS, STP, and Equity Bonus (EB)

funds may be used for planning activities. Federal transit funds are also available for metropolitan

planning (Section 5303 funds). MPOs are required to match federal funds with 20% of funds

from state and local sources. For FY2009, nearly $400 million in federal funds were apportioned

for metropolitan planning, with about $304 million from federal highway funds and $94 million

from federal transit funds. Federal funds apportioned for metropolitan transportation planning

since 2000 can be seen in Figure 1.

Issues for Congress

Since the first federal requirements for urban transportation planning in the early 1960s and for

MPOs in the early 1970s, Congress has modified and generally strengthened the metropolitan

transportation planning process and the role of MPOs. Arguably, the biggest changes date to the

enactment of the ISTEA and the requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA;

P.L. 101-549). Among other changes, ISTEA brought in the requirements for a fiscally

constrained TIP, suballocated funds to urbanized areas, funding to air quality non-attainment and

maintenance areas through CMAQ, and, in concert with the CAAA, made air quality an

important goal of metropolitan planning. ISTEA also increased the amount of federal planning

funds provided to MPOs. Subsequent surface transportation reauthorization legislation, the

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, as amended, enacted in 1998 (TEA-21; P.L. 105178; P.L. 105-206) and SAFETEA, enacted in 2005, reaffirmed these changes with some

modifications.

With the initial expiration of SAFETEA at the end of FY2009, the role of MPOs is once again

being debated in Congress in the context of reauthorizing the federal surface transportation

programs. There appear to be five major issues that Congress may consider in this debate: (1) the

authority of MPOs relative to state DOTs to plan and program funds; (2) representation and

participation in MPOs; (3) MPO funding and technical capacity; (4) MPOs and the

implementation of livability/sustainability initiatives; and (5) other issues with transportation

planning requirements.

GAO, 2009, pp. 13-15.

Ibid., p. 12.

Congressional Research Service

Metropolitan Transportation Planning

Figure 1. Federal Funds Apportioned for Metropolitan Transportation Planning,

FY2000-FY2009

($ Millions)

450

400

350

Transit Funds

Highway Funds

$ Millions

300

250

200

150

100

FY2000

FY2001

FY2002

FY2003

FY2004

FY2005

FY2006

FY2007

FY2008

FY2009

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit

Administration.

Decision-Making Authority of MPOs Relative to State DOTs

Possibly the most important issue for Congress with respect to metropolitan transportation

planning is the decision-making authority of MPOs, particularly with respect to the authority of

state DOTs, and the effect this has on the geography of infrastructure funding. One prominent

view on this issue is that under current law MPOs are relatively powerless because most federal

highway funding is controlled by the states. Because many state legislatures and state DOTs have

historically been dominated by rural areas, it has been argued that, consequently, urban regions

have generally fared relatively poorly in highway funding.18 As one transportation coalition has

asserted, a “reason to increase the decisionmaking authority and ability of MPOs is that many

states continue to penalize metropolitan areas in the distribution of transportation funds.”19

Moreover, adherents to this view suggest that even with money that is directed to urban areas, the

authority of MPOs is weak because project selection by MPOs must be done in cooperation or

Robert Puentes and Linda Bailey, “Increasing Funding and Accountability for Metropolitan Transportation

Decisions,” and Edward Hill et al., “Slanted Pavement: How Ohio’s Highway Spending Shortchanges Cities and

Suburbs,” in Bruce Katz and Robert Puentes, eds., Taking the High Road: A Metropolitan Agenda for Transportation

Reform, Washington, DC, Brookings Institution Press, 2005.

Transportation for America, The Route to Reform: Blueprint For a 21st Century Federal Transportation Program,

Washington, DC, 2009, p.153 (emphasis in original), http://t4america.org/docs/blueprint_full.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Metropolitan Transportation Planning

consultation with the state DOT and local governments. Indeed, when local control exists it still

tends to rest with local jurisdictions that are often more interested in receiving their “fair share” of

project money than on solving regional transportation problems.20

Another effect of state DOTs being largely in control of highway funding, these observers argue,

is a bias towards highway construction projects of a type that is more suited to rural

environments. Adherents to this view contend that highway improvements tend to be of the larger

kind that accommodate faster speeds, and, thus, are not built with non-vehicular traffic in mind.

Consequently, it is said, there has been much less emphasis on transportation improvements that

might be better suited to urban environments, including roads with slower design speeds that

accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians, operations and management improvements such as

signal timing, and the use of “highway” funds on other modes such as transit. This alleged

spending bias has implications for urban development because, as one think tank put it, “state

DOTs’ traditional focus on highway maintenance and construction fosters metropolitan

decentralization that negatively impacts cities and older suburbs.”21

According to this view, more federal funding needs to be directed to urbanized areas, and greater

power to make infrastructure funding decisions needs to be placed in the hands of MPOs.

Providing this greater authority is often linked to requiring greater accountability for

transportation outcomes. One coalition of transportation groups argues for “empowering regions

to shape their future by giving them more direct funding and decision-making authority, while

holding them accountable for results.”22

Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 2009

Some of these ideas are contained in the proposed Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 2009

(STAA), a bill that has not been formally introduced and, hence, is unnumbered, but nonetheless

has been subject to markup by the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.23 Although the bill is incomplete, lacking funding data

and other details on several of what might be the most significant features in the bill, there are a

number of legislative proposals pertaining to MPOs. STAA creates the Metropolitan Mobility and

Access (MMA) Program which would provide funding and financing authority directly to MPOs

in areas of 500,000 or more. 24 According to the draft bill,

[t]he purpose of the metropolitan mobility and access program shall be to provide multimodal transportation funding and financing authority directly to metropolitan planning

organizations, thereby allowing MPOs broad multi-modal flexibility in planning and

implementing programs of surface transportation projects to reduce vehicular congestion, to

maximize mobility and access of people and goods, and to improve safety, environmental

sustainability, and livability in large urbanized areas.25

Downs, Anthony and Robert Puentes, “The Need for Regional Anticongestion Policies,” in Katz and Puentes, 2005.

Robert Puentes and Linda Bailey, 2005, p. 153.

Transportation for America, 2009, p.11.

CRS Report R40780, Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation in the 111th Congress:

Summary of Selected Major Provisions, coordinated by (name redacted).

Whether all MPOs are authorized under state and local laws to receive funds directly from the federal government is

uncertain (See 23 U.S.C. Section 134).

Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009, Section 1205, http://transportation.house.gov/Media/file/

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Metropolitan Transportation Planning

To be eligible to receive funding, an MPO will have to develop a metropolitan mobility plan that

is approved by DOT. The MMA requires an MPO to have an approved metropolitan mobility

plan, supported by performance-based goals and metrics, to receive funds. Beginning in FY2012,

continued funding is contingent on providing an annual report which documents progress toward

the goals, reasons for failing to meet any of the goals, and a new plan by which the goals will be

met going forward.

Providing federal highway funding directly to MPOs would be a major change in the way the

Federal-Aid Highway Program operates, and could be a major shift in authority from the states to

the MPOs. Apart from the question of the relative power of MPOs and state DOTs, there are some

in the transportation community who worry about the ability of some MPOs, particularly those in

small and medium size urbanized areas, to administer federal funds efficiently. Another concern,

at least in some states, is that MPOs may not have the legal authority to receive federal funds

directly. Although most MPOs are not officially units of government, but instead cooperative,

intergovernmental organizations, the creation and organization of MPOs is, by and large, dictated

by state law. Consequently, changes to funding mechanisms and the authority of MPOs at the

federal level may require states and local governments to reevaluate MPO governance structures.

Other Perspectives on MPO Authority

Putting the intergovernmental question aside, the case can be made that unless federal funding is

very substantial and comes with much stronger authority over project implementation and other

matters, such as land use, MPOs are likely to remain relatively weak. This is because real power

will still be centered within state/local government, including single-mode entities such as transit

agencies, and local officials that typically make up the governing board of an MPO will find it

hard to make decisions that while good for the region may be detrimental to the interests of their

home jurisdiction. For example, a commission established by the State of Washington to examine

transportation issues in the Puget Sound region found that there were 128 agencies managing

some aspect of transportation in the four-county area. The commission noted that

formal and informal discussions with over 100 individuals and more than 50 agencies reveal

the difficulties that these individuals and agencies face when attempting to prioritize regional

interests in transportation infrastructure. These officials bring hard work, intelligence and

insight to their roles. However, they are charged with advancing the interests of an individual

agency, district, city, county or the state as a whole, or with protecting the interests of a

particular mode of transportation, such as roads or transit.26

It recommended, therefore, that

the [Washington State] Legislature create a new 15-member Puget Sound Regional

Transportation Commission (PSRTC) that has authority and responsibility for planning,

prioritizing and funding all modes of regional transportation for the four-county area.... Our

recommendations suggest that the agency should have responsibility for land use, roads and

(...continued)

Highways/HPP/OBERST_044_xml.pdf.

Regional Transportation Commission, Final Report, December 31, 2006, pp. 5-1.

Congressional Research Service

Metropolitan Transportation Planning

transit, including the three current regional entities. We believe the agency should have

taxing, tolling and borrowing authority. 27

Although this recommendation, at least in terms of transportation planning, was repeated by the

Washington State Auditor in a study of highway traffic congestion in the Puget Sound region—

with the additional thought that this single control could be given to either the Washington State

DOT or a new regional entity—it is perhaps not surprising that such a powerful regional entity

has not been established to date.28

An opposing view is that Congress should abolish federal involvement in metropolitan planning

which deals with mostly local or regional concerns.29 In this view, metropolitan transportation

planning and MPOs have largely failed, not because they are too weak, but because they are

beholden to a special-interest coalition of government planners, private consultants, and others

who favor behavioral “smart growth” strategies to deal with regional transportation problems

such as highway congestion, air pollution, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Smart growth

strategies, it is argued, rely on making urban areas more dense through land use regulation, and

by placing greater funding emphasis on alternatives to cars and trucks such as transit, bicycling,

and walking. According to this view, these behavioral tools failed in dealing with urban air

quality problems, and they will fail to reduce GHG emissions, particularly if cost effectiveness is

used as a criterion.

As a corollary to this view, the case can be made that while urban regions do relatively poorly in

terms of highway funding, they more than make up for it in terms of transit funding that is

typically provided directly to transit operators and is supported by highway user fees.

Additionally, it might be argued that highway funding tends to be directed to more rural parts of

the state because there are great needs for intercity connectivity, even for urban residents, and it is

at the rural fringes of urban regions where population growth tends to be fastest, and, hence,

where infrastructure needs are greatest.

A third view is that Congress should make little or no change to the current authority of MPOs

nor to the relationship between MPOs and state DOTs. This is the view of the American

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the association of state

DOTs. In its view, the current process properly assigns authority to the owner of each element in

the hierarchy of the highway system and requires a proper level of cooperation between different

levels of government through the MPO. It argues that

changes to this relationship risk a loss of state control over state-owned roads, including

Interstate highways and National Highway System facilities, potentially allowing local

concerns to dominate broader state and national transportation and economic needs such as

freight movement through and around these urban areas.30

Ibid., introductory letter to the governor, State Senate, and State House of Representatives.

Washington State Auditor, Washington State Department of Transportation, Managing and Reducing Congestion in

the Puget Sound, Performance Audit, Report No. 1000006, Olympia, WA, October 2007, http://www.sao.wa.gov/

auditreports/auditreportfiles/ar1000006.pdf.

Randal O’Toole, 2008.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), “AASHTO Authorization Policy,

Topic IV: Project and Program Development and Delivery,” p. 35, http://www.transportation.org/sites/policy_docs/

docs/iv.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Metropolitan Transportation Planning

Representation and Participation in MPOs

As noted earlier, the organizational structure of an MPO, including the make-up of the governing

board and voting rights, and its decision-making processes (e.g., majority vote or consensus) are

largely at the discretion of state and local lawmakers. Despite variation in the way MPOs are

organized around the country, MPOs are typically governed by a board of voting members made

up of local elected representatives selected from member jurisdictions. Other voting and nonvoting members may be appointed ex officio, such as the head of the local transit agency, or by

gubernatorial appointment, such as a representative from the state DOT. Many MPOs have

advisory committees that support the policy board, such as those dedicated to technical, freight,

air quality, and bicycle/pedestrian issues, and many have a citizens advisory committee. 31

Voting representation on MPO policy boards varies widely, but voting weighted by the population

of member jurisdictions is relatively uncommon. 32 Because the resident population of member

jurisdictions is often vastly different, a common criticism is that this creates a serious problem of

unequal representation, or malapportionment, on the MPO policy board. A number of studies

have found that this malapportionment tends to over-represent suburban residents at the expense

of central city residents, and that this geographical disparity also tends to result in an underrepresentation of racial and ethnic minorities in the decision-making of MPOs.33

One study of MPOs in the 50 largest urbanized areas found that only 16 provided for voting

weighted by population.34 In five of the 16, the weighting is proportional to population, but in the

remaining 11 the weighting provides additional votes to the more populous jurisdictions, but not

in proportion to population size. The study found that, on average, while central city populations

make up 59% of residents overseen by MPOs, they only receive 29% of votes on MPOs’ boards.

In contrast, suburban residents make-up 26% of the population, but receive 55% of the votes. The

remaining 15% of votes go to non-local entities such as transit agencies and state DOTs. The

study also showed that racial and ethnic minorities also tended to be underrepresented among

MPO voting board members in part because of the geographical bias. While non-Hispanic white

residents of the 50 urbanized areas studied were 61% of the population, 88% of the voting

members on MPO boards were non-Hispanic white. Correspondingly, other groups were

underrepresented: black 15% population, 7% voting board members; Hispanic 17% population,

3% voting board members; Asian 6% population, 1% voting board members.

The effects of underrepresentation of central cities and racial and ethnic minorities in the

composition of MPO voting boards are still not fully clear, but one research study has found a

link between representation and the share of funding directed to transit. This study of 20 large

Alexander Bond and Jeff Kramer, “Governance of Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Board Size, Composition,

and Voting Rights,” Paper presented at the Transportation Research Board annual meeting, Washington, DC, January

11, 2010.

Ibid.

Paul G. Lewis, “Regionalism and Representation: Measuring and Assessing Representation in Metropolitan Planning

Organization,” Urban Affairs Review, vol. 33, no. 6 (July 1998), pp. 839-853; Association of Metropolitan Planning

Organizations, “AMPO Survey Results: Policy Board Structure,” at http://www.ampo.org/assets/

62_policyboardstructure.doc; Thomas W. Sanchez, An Inherent Bias? Geographic and Racial-Ethnic Patterns of

Metropolitan Planning Organization Boards, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, January 2006,

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2006/01transportation_sanchez/20060124_mpos.pdf.

Sanchez, 2006.

Congressional Research Service

Metropolitan Transportation Planning

MPOs found that for every extra vote suburban areas receive on an MPO board between 1% and

7% less funds were directed to transit in the MPO budget. 35

Although malapportionment exists in many MPOs, an alternative view is that it does not have as

much of an effect on decision-making as the research would seem to suggest. This is because a

large number of MPOs work on a consensus basis, and, in MPOs where voting in proportion to

population size is provided for, in practice it is rarely used. 36 The case can be made that less than

proportional representation prevents the most populous jurisdiction(s) in a metropolitan area from

dominating the MPO. Less populous jurisdictions also can be geographically large or rapidly

growing and, thus, it might also be argued, deserve more say than population alone would

indicate.

Furthermore, it might be argued that MPO decisions with respect to minority and low-income

populations are constrained by other federal laws and regulations including Title VI of the Civil

Rights Act and Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations). Based on Title VI requirements, an MPO

must develop a public participation plan for “seeking out and considering the needs of those

traditionally underserved by existing transportation systems, such as low-income and minority

households, who face challenges accessing employment and other services” (23 CFR 450.318). As

noted earlier, the metropolitan planning process, in areas designated as TMAs, must be certified

by the Secretary of Transportation as being carried out according to federal law, and, thus, an

MPO certification review is when compliance with these requirements can be enforced. But critics

contend that withholding or providing conditional certification is a relatively weak way of

enforcing participation requirements, and one rarely used. 37 Also, these public participation

requirements do not directly address the question of representation on the local MPO policy

board. On the other hand it might be argued that many MPOs have made a legitimate attempt

with limited resources to involve traditionally underserved communities, and that often it is

difficult to generate involvement with seemingly arcane deliberations, far removed from the usual

topics of interest to such communities.

If Congress believes it is desirable to alter local representation and participation in MPOs, there

are a number of possible avenues that it might take. Congress could require that voting on MPO

boards be in proportion to the population of the member jurisdictions. This approach is taken in

the STAA. Another possibility is to strengthen the federal certification requirements for MPOs,

especially those in TMAs, to take greater account of public participation, and to more formally

consider voting and non-voting board membership, advisory committee membership, and voting

mechanisms as possible sources of bias.38 A third suggestion is for MPOs to place greater

emphasis on public participation, recruitment of minorities to serve on advisory committees, and

the diversity of policy boards, including non-voting members.39 Congress might support this

essentially state and local initiative by providing DOT with more funding to develop and share

techniques, including leadership training, for achieving such ends.

Arthur C. Nelson, Thomas W. Sanchez, and James F. Wolf, et al., “Metropolitan Planning Organization Voting

Structure and Transit Investment Bias: Preliminary Analysis with Social Equity Implications,” Transportation

Research Record, vol. 1895 (2004), pp. 1-7.

Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations.

Sanchez, 2006.

Ibid.

Congressional Research Service

Metropolitan Transportation Planning

MPO Funding and Technical Capacity

Another concern with MPOs is that most do not have the technical capacity, or the funding, to

successfully fulfill federal planning requirements, including developing the long-range plan, the

TIP, and conducting public meetings. As noted earlier, apart from a handful of MPOs in the

largest areas, MPOs tend to have small executive and technical staffs, and many rely on staff time

and expertise from other agencies, typically state DOTs. One specific problem is conducting the

modeling that is required as the basis of forecasting future travel growth, capacity needs, and, in

air quality non-attainment and maintenance areas, conformity with air quality plans. As the

modeling requirements have become increasingly complex over time, many MPOs have had

trouble keeping up. Additionally, many MPOs have difficulties acquiring the data they need

support their modeling efforts. According to a report of the Transportation Research Board

(TRB), a part of the National Academies, while federal requirements for modeling have

increased, federal funding for model development has been “greatly reduced.”40

One possible option for congressional action would be to provide more federal funding for

planning activities, including more funding for model development and data collection. This

might be done by increasing the overall funding for transportation programs, or by taking funds

from other transportation programs. One possibility would be raising the 1.25% deduction from

highway programs to 1.5% or more. Some MPOs also argue that providing more flexibility in the

use of federal planning funds, particularly those overseen by FHWA, would help them fulfill their

planning requirements. Another complaint is that MPOs cannot use all their apportioned federal

planning funds because they cannot raise the local matching share due to state and local funding

constraints.41 An option, therefore, might be to increase the federal share from the current 80%.

The downside of this approach is that it may not increase the amount of funds going to

metropolitan planning, because raising the federal share might result in less support from state

and local government. Another approach might be to increase FHWA and FTA technical support

to MPOs by helping with the challenges of modeling including acquiring the necessary data.

A different approach to the issue of MPO funding and technical capacity is to reduce the federal

requirements for metropolitan planning. This could be done in a number of different ways. One

approach would be to increase the population threshold for the creation of an MPO from 50,000

residents. The STAA, for instance, has proposed increasing the threshold to 100,000 residents,

although existing MPOs in areas currently between 50,000 and 100,000 would be maintained as

required by current law. The threshold for designating a TMA, with the added requirements for

MPOs, might also be increased from the current population of 200,000. Another option might be

to drop the requirements for developing long-range plans. Some have suggested that such

planning is a waste of time and money because, among other things, conditions 20 years in the

future are impossible to predict.42 Nevertheless, highways, transit systems, and other significant

infrastructure projects typically last much longer than 20 years, so it might be argued that it is

worth thinking through as much as possible the longer-term ramifications of such decisions.

Transportation Research Board, Metropolitan Travel Forecasting: Current Practice and Future Direction, Special

Report 288, Washington, DC, 2007, p. 6, http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr288.pdf.

GAO, 2009, p. 17.

Randal O’Toole, 2009.

Congressional Research Service

Metropolitan Transportation Planning

MPOs and “Livability/Sustainability” Initiatives

An often heard criticism of federal surface transportation policy is that, over the years, it has

largely ignored the effects of transportation investment on urban land use development. Among

the transportation policies said to have contributed to these problems are the division of funding

into inflexible highway and transit “silos,” giving state DOTs almost complete control over the

large pot of highway funding, and ignoring the linkages with other federal policy areas such as

housing and the environment, particularly at the scale of the metropolitan region.43 Consequently,

federal support, as previously mentioned, is thought to be biased toward road building in rural

and newly urbanizing areas on the urban fringe, which begets more low-density residential and

commercial development that is difficult to serve with transit, and, therefore, contributes to more

car dependency and motor vehicle emissions.

The remedy, according to this argument, is to focus flexible transportation funding much more on

solving problems in metropolitan regions and to leverage the synergies between transportation,

housing, and environmental policies. Thus, for instance, federal policies could encourage states

and localities to provide for housing, densely formed with commercial development around

transit stations and stops. This would, according to its proponents, allow people to choose among

a number of ways of traveling—including automobile, transit, bicycling, and walking—to access

work, shopping, and other amenities. Such transit-oriented development (TOD) could also

provide new customers for transit agencies, reduce vehicle-miles traveled and the associated

environmental problems, and lower household transportation expenditures.

Proponents of this approach often include a greater scope for metropolitan transportation planning

and greater power for MPOs. The Obama Administration has announced an Interagency

Partnership for Sustainable Communities to be entered into by DOT, the Department of Housing

and Urban Development (HUD), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The

Partnership is designed “to help improve access to affordable housing, more transportation

options, and lower transportation costs while protecting the environment in communities

nationwide.”44 To “enhance integrated planning and investment ... HUD, EPA and DOT propose

to make planning grants available to metropolitan areas, and create mechanisms to ensure those

plans are carried through to localities.”45 Presumably, MPOs would be well placed to receive

those grants to enhance integrated planning.

From the brief descriptions available, the planning grants announced by the Obama

Administration do not appear to be much different than the intent of those available under a

program established in TEA-21 and continued in SAFETEA—the Transportation, Community,

and System Preservation (TCSP) Program.46 As enacted, the TCSP program provides relatively

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban

Development, and Related Agencies, Supporting Integrated Planning and Decision Making by Joining-Up Housing

and Transportation, Congressional Testimony of Robert Puentes, Brookings Institution, 111th Cong., 1st sess., March

19, 2009, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/testimonies/2009/0319_transportation_puentes/

0319_transportation_puentes.pdf.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Public Affairs “DOT Secretary Ray LaHood, HUD Secretary Shaun

Donovan and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson Announce Interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities,” Press

Release DOT 80-09, June 16, 2009, http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2009/dot8009.htm.

Ibid.

See U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, “Transportation, Community, and System

Preservation Program website,” http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tcsp/index.html.

Congressional Research Service

Metropolitan Transportation Planning

small discretionary grants for research and planning to states, MPOs, and local governments to

establish “a comprehensive program to address the relationships among transportation,

community, and system preservation plans and practices and identify private sector-based

initiatives to improve such relationships” (SAFETEA, Section 1117). Although FHWA

administers the program in cooperation with other DOT modal administrations and EPA, over the

life of the program, TCSP grants in most years have been awarded by congressional designation

(earmarks) in appropriations legislation. The exceptions to this were FY1999, FY2000, and

FY2007 when some or all of the program’s funds were allocated by the Secretary of

Transportation. Partly due to the way the program was originally conceived and partly because

most of the funds have been earmarked, the TCSP program has generally served as a pot of

funding to be used for almost any surface transportation purpose. Without a clear purpose, it is

difficult to evaluate the success of the projects being supported and the success of the program as

a whole. Similarly, it could be argued that without a clear understanding of what is meant by

“sustainability” and “livability,” the new planning grants might go for almost any purpose, and

the success or failure of funded projects difficult to judge. Congress might also be concerned with

the basis on which these new planning grants are to be distributed.

Despite the creation of this Interagency Partnership, moreover, it is not entirely clear without

legislation what mechanisms and funding these agencies have at their disposal to follow through

with sustainability/livability initiatives. FTA recently announced that it would use unallocated

New Starts/Small Starts Program funds ($130 million) and Bus and Bus-Related Facilities

Program funds ($150 million) to support its livability initiative, but again these program funds are

often earmarked by Congress. These relatively modest amounts of funds, moreover, are already

designated for transit.47 Surface transportation reauthorization, climate change legislation, or

both, therefore seem more likely sources of new authority and resources. In the reauthorization of

surface transportation programs, one transportation coalition is proposing that metropolitan areas

of 1 million or more, with smaller areas given the chance to opt-in, should be required to develop

what it calls 20-year Regional Blueprint plans which “demonstrate how proposed transportation

investments and system operations and management will coordinate with land use strategies to

achieve timely and reasonable progress towards meeting National Transportation Performance

Targets.”48 An aspect of developing the plans is land-use scenario planning. If enacted as

proposed, these plans would have to be approved by the state, DOT and EPA, and reviewed by

HUD and the Department of Health and Human Services. Once approved, an MPO would be

granted federal transportation funds and project selection authority.

Legislative Proposals

As noted earlier, STAA proposes to provide MPOs with federal funding directly. Moreover, the

bill adds some factors that an MPO would be required to consider in the planning process such as

enhancing sustainability and livability, reducing GHG emissions and dependence on foreign oil,

improving public health, and the relationship between transportation and land use development

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, “Exempt Discretionary Program Grants (Section

5309) for Urban Circulator Systems,” 74 Federal Register 234, December 8, 2009, pp. 64989-64994,

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-29245.pdf; U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit

Administration, “Section 5309 Bus and Bus Facilities Livability Initiative Program Grants,” 74 Federal Register 234,

December 8, 2009, pp. 64984-64989, http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-29242.pdf.

Transportation for America, 2009, p. 24.

Congressional Research Service

Metropolitan Transportation Planning

patterns. In many cases, STAA would require an MPO to develop performance measures and

strategies to meet the targets that are set.

Similar requirements are also included in various versions of climate change legislation that are

working their way through Congress. The House passed H.R. 2454 (Waxman/Markey) on June

26, 2009. A Senate version of the legislation, S. 1733, was introduced September 30, 2009. A

more limited bill, the Clean, Low Emission, Affordable, New Transportation Efficiency Act (S.

575/H.R. 1329), sometimes referred to as CLEANTEA, that supporters hope might be included in

a larger climate change bill proposes some transportation-related aspects of climate change

mitigation. Three common characteristics of the bills are a new fund that will receive money from

the auction of GHG emission allowances; requirements for states and MPOs responsible for

TMAs to develop GHG reduction plans; and the use of funds from the new fund to do the

planning and to implement projects in the plan. H.R. 2454 provides 1% of auctioned funds to be

used for transportation purposes, whereas S. 575/H.R. 1329 proposes 10% of these new funds.

One point of controversy has been whether the GHG emission reduction plans required as part of

the planning process must be submitted to and approved by the Environmental Protection Agency

instead of or in addition to the Department of Transportation. This provision was included in the

version of H.R. 2454 passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, but was

subsequently dropped in the version passed on the floor of the House. Environmentalists

generally favor EPA oversight with the view that this is most likely to result in stricter limits and

enforcement. In contrast, the transportation community generally opposes EPA oversight with the

view that EPA is likely to favor the environmental over the transportation goals of a plan, and that

the added oversight would result in longer approval time for projects.49

A different view on livability/sustainability initiatives, and the role that MPOs might play, is that

promoting denser, transit-oriented development through more transit funding and planning

regulations will result in smaller, less affordable housing and will actually inhibit mobility

through increased reliance on transit and more highway congestion.50 Trips by transit, analysts

propounding this view contend, are almost always slower than those in private vehicles, and

transit usage does not typically confer significant environmental benefits. Just as the greatest

success in battling urban air pollution has been through technical improvements, particularly the

catalytic converter, these analysts argue that reducing GHG emissions will not be done by getting

people out of their cars, but by getting them into plug-in hybrids and employing other “green”

technologies.51 Changing travel behavior, they argue, is an expensive way to reduce GHG

emissions and may potentially damage the economy by reducing the efficiency of regional

economies.

Adam Snider and Kate Naseef, “Transportation Stakeholders Fight Proposal To Shift Planning Authority From DOT

to EPA,” BNA Daily Report for Executives, June 1, 2009, pp. A-10.

Ronald D. Utt, President Obama’s New Plan to Decide Where Americans Live and How They Travel, Heritage

Foundation, Backgrounder, No. 2260, Washington, DC, April 14, 2009, http://www.heritage.org/Research/

SmartGrowth/upload/bg_2260.pdf; Randal O’ Toole, 2009.

Wendell Cox, “Regulating Greenhouse Gases, Not People: Opportunities and Possibilities,” Presentation, Heritage

Foundation, Washington, DC, July 23, 2009, http://demographia.com/dmgghgher.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Metropolitan Transportation Planning

Climate Change Mitigation, Compact Cities, and Transportation

The arguments for and against more compact urban development and related policies, such as

greater transit funding, have taken on new urgency in the past few years because of the concern

with GHG emissions and climate change. As a whole, EPA says transportation was responsible

for 28% of all GHG emissions in the United States in 2007. Highway vehicles alone were

responsible for 23% of the U.S. total.52 Some analysts have argued that advances in vehicle

energy efficiency that reduce fuel consumption and fuel carbon content have been overwhelmed

by the growth in vehicle miles traveled. They argue that to reduce the amount of GHG from the

transportation sector it will be necessary to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). To do that, one

school of thought argues “compact development will reduce the need to drive between 20 and 40

percent, as compared with development at the outer suburban edge with isolated homes,

workplaces, and other destinations.”53

A review of the evidence by a special study committee of TRB agreed that denser urban

development could reduce VMT. As it noted in the study report,

the literature suggests that doubling residential density across a metropolitan area might

lower household VMT by about 5 to 12 percent, and perhaps by as much as 25 percent, if

coupled with higher employment concentrations, significant public transit improvements,

mixed uses, and other supportive demand management measures.54

Even though substantial building of residential and commercial property will presumably take

place between now and 2050, doubling residential densities would be very challenging because

land use is controlled mostly by local jurisdictions, where existing residents are often very

concerned about new development causing congestion, higher property taxes, and the like. Thus,

the committee believes that reductions in VMT, energy use, and CO2 emissions resulting

from compact, mixed-use development would be in the range of less than 1 percent to 11

percent by 2050, although the committee disagreed about whether the changes in

development patterns and public policies necessary to achieve the high end of these findings

are plausible.55

Other Issues with Transportation Planning Requirements

Long-Range Planning

There are three other issues having to do with transportation planning requirements that Congress

may want to consider. The first of these is whether or not MPOs should be required to develop

Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007, EPA 430-R09-004, Washington, DC, April 15, 2009, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads09/

InventoryUSGhG1990-2007.pdf.

Reid Ewing, Keith Bartholomew, and Steve Winkleman, et al., Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban

Development and Climate Change (Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute, 2008), p. 9.

Transportation Research Board, Driving and the Built Environment: The Effects of Compact Development on

Motorized Travel, Energy Use, and CO2 Emissions, Special Report 298, Washington, DC, 2009, p. 2,

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/sr/sr298prepub.pdf.

Ibid., p.4.

Congressional Research Service

Metropolitan Transportation Planning

long-range plans. Critics argue that for two main reasons Congress should not require long-range

plans, and should have MPOs focus on the short-term TIP instead. They contend that the

metropolitan planning process in most places is flawed because it does not follow a rational

planning model where alternative projects are weighed one against another with as many of the

benefits and costs measured as possible. Thus, the long-range planning process is dominated by

professional planners who often seek to change travel behavior by pursuing smart growth

solutions of compact development and by heavily subsidizing non-automobile modes of

transportation. The second main reason given for abandoning federal requirements for long-range

planning is that it “requires information about the future that is essentially unknowable.”56 This

includes things like the price of oil, the state of vehicle technology, job and housing location, and

the prevalence of telecommuting. Because much of the information necessary for long-term

planning is unknowable and because many of the costs and benefits are not quantified, this

critique insists that project decisions are typically made on political grounds rather than on

rational grounds. Instead, it is argued, metropolitan planning “should focus on the short term, give

transportation agencies incentives to improve transportation outcomes, and encourage regions and

agencies to rely more on user-fee-based funding mechanisms.”57

Freight Transportation

A second issue is the incorporation of freight transportation needs and concerns into the planning

process. One study has noted that there is no clear mandate for freight planning in federal law,

although it is included in Titles 23 and 49 as something that should be considered.58 Moreover,

the same study also notes that while the planning process is required to include public outreach

and participation, in many areas the freight community is not involved in the process in any

meaningful way. In places where there is involvement, often through freight advisory committees,

the concern is that this is not clearly linked to the development and prioritization of projects. For

these reasons, some suggest that freight plans be a required component of statewide and

metropolitan transportation plans. Another option is for the federal government to provide extra

funds to states and MPOs to hire staff freight experts.59

Geographic Scale

The freight problem is a good example of a third planning issue that could be of concern to

Congress, the geographic scale at which planning is undertaken and the integration of

metropolitan planning with planning being done at different scales. At the moment, metropolitan

transportation plans must be integrated with statewide transportation plans. Because travel,

particularly freight, often exceeds the jurisdiction of a single MPO or state, there have been calls

for developing a national transportation plan and multi-state freight corridor plans. The National

Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, for example, recommended the

Randal O’Toole, 2008, p. 22.

Ibid.

Cambridge Systematics, Prime Focus, and Kevin Heanue, Integrating Freight into Transportation Planning and

Project-Selection Processes, Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Highway Research Program,

NCHRP Web-Only Document 112, Washington, DC, March 2007, http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/

nchrp_w112.pdf.

Freight Stakeholders Association, “Association Stakeholders Call for National Freight Program and Stronger Federal

Role,” News Release, May 21, 2009, http://www.intermodal.org/stakeholders_files/documents/

PR_FSC_Call_for_National_Freight_Program.pdf#page=3.

Congressional Research Service

Metropolitan Transportation Planning

creation of a national strategic plan, 60 and AASHTO has suggested that Congress provide funding

for multi-state corridor planning and investment organizations, such as the I-95 Corridor

Coalition.61

Heeding these concerns, there have been legislative proposals for adding new transportation

planning requirements at the national, state, and regional levels. The STAA, for example,

proposes to create new requirements for the development of a National Transportation Strategic

Plan, state freight plans, metropolitan mobility plans, and freight corridor plans. The draft bill

allows funding to be provided to a maximum of ten freight corridor coalitions to develop the

freight corridor plans. A coalition would be comprised of representatives from state DOTs, MPOs,

port authorities, freight carriers, and shippers. Under the proposed legislation, the freight corridor

plan would be required to be consistent with the long-range statewide transportation plan, the

statewide improvement plan, the metropolitan long-range transportation plan, the transportation

improvement program, and the metropolitan mobility plan.

Alternatively, it could be argued that requiring these many different layers of planning could

consume an enormous amount of effort, time, and thus money, not only on each individual plan

but also on coordinating and making the different plans consistent. Moreover, in the case of

disagreements it might be difficult to determine which organization and which plan takes

precedence. The result, therefore, could be a stalemate that inhibits rather than promotes

transportation system improvements.

Conclusion

Since the end of the Second World War, America has experienced what one historian calls a

“metropolitan revolution,” in which the economy and culture of tightly drawn regions of urban

and suburban development each focused on a central core “was replaced by an amorphous sprawl

without a unifying hub or culture.”62 According to this view, an important dimension of change

has been the increasing fragmentation of metropolitan governance, as urban regions have

decentralized over larger and larger areas. For example, the metropolitan area of Pittsburgh, one

of the most fragmented, was estimated to have over 400 general-purpose local governments in the

late 1990s. Even the Phoenix metropolitan area, one of the least fragmented, was estimated to

have 34 local governments.63

Despite the amorphousness of contemporary urban development, research suggests that there is a

significant interdependence between places in a metropolitan area that bears on a region’s

economic efficiency and, thus, competitiveness in a national and international context.64

National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, Transportation for Tomorrow, Washington,

DC, 2007, http://www.transportationfortomorrow.org/final_report/

AASHTO, Freight Authorization Policy, http://www.transportation.org/sites/policy_docs/docs/vi.pdf.

Jon C. Teaford, The Metropolitan Revolution: The Rise of Post-Urban America (New York: Columbia University

Press, 2006), p.3.

Myron Orfield, American Metropolitics: The New Suburban Reality (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press,

2002), p 132.

Andrew F. Haughwout and Robert P. Inman, “How Should Suburbs Help Their Central Cities? Growth- and

Welfare-Enhancing Intrametropolitan Fiscal Distributions,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and

Social Science, vol. 626 (November 2009), pp. 39-52.

Congressional Research Service

Metropolitan Transportation Planning

Governmental fragmentation can make it particularly difficult to deal with problems of a regional

nature, such as transportation congestion, that affect metropolitan productivity. This is because, it

is argued, “planners and politicians are torn between mitigating the localized effects of regional

problems and addressing the common concerns and long-range interests of their larger

metropolitan areas.”65

Over the years there have been three main ways that regional governance in metropolitan areas

has been enhanced. 66 The first way is through the state-granted power of annexation by which

cities are able to expand into bordering developed or undeveloped unincorporated areas. For

example, between 1960 and 1990, Houston added 212 square miles to its jurisdiction, an increase

of 65%. A second way of reducing governmental fragmentation is through multijurisdictional

consolidation. This is typically done when a city consolidates with a county and the cities within

it. An example is the consolidation of the City of Indianapolis and Marion County that took place

in 1970. Although there has been some reduction in governmental fragmentation due to

annexation of territory and consolidation of local governments, in many states, particularly in the

older and more developed Northeast and Midwest, powers to annex and consolidate are weak.

The third main way that regional governance has been enhanced is the development of specialpurpose regional bodies, the most widespread of which are MPOs. Although regional authorities

sit uncomfortably in the long established intergovernmental system of federal, state, and local

government, strengthened MPOs might offer the most likely current means of reducing the

fragmentation of metropolitan governance. This may be a primary reason why some would like to

see Congress significantly enhance and broaden the authority and resources of MPOs now and in

the future.

Author Contact Information

(name redacted)

Specialist in Transportation Policy

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

Ibid., p. 130.

Ibid., pp. 133-140.

Congressional Research Service

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.