On June 27, 2016, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) issued proposed rules that would
change the way that metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) define the
geography of their planning areas, would force a fresh look at situations where
there may be more than one MPO for a given urbanized area, and that would
require a single set of transportation plans and programs for each urbanized
area, regardless of how many MPOs it may have. Those provisions could require
MPOs to develop additional formal documentation with one another and with the
governments and transit agencies in their planning areas. The rules proposed by
FHWA and FTA also would require considering the possible consolidation of MPOs
following each decennial census. Once (and if) finalized, these rules might
come with a two-year phase-in period before they took full effect.
If adopted, these rules would amend the joint FHWA-FTA
planning rules that were issued just a month earlier, on May 27, 2016. However,
it’s important to note that NPRMs are not regulations, are subject to
considerable change when – or if – finalized, and generally are not finalized
for what can be a considerable period of time since first proposed. So if
you’re with an MPO or state DOT, be sure you’re gearing up to follow the
recently published planning rules, even as you prepare comments on this latest
proposal.
The proposed regulations were published in the June 27,
2016, Federal Register, which you can find on line at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/06/27/2016-14854/metropolitan-planning-organization-coordination-and-planning-area-reform.
Comments are due August 26, 2016. For additional information on this rule,
interested parties are invited to register for a webinar that FHWA is hosting
on July 15, 2016. Additional information is at the end of this post.
This sounds esoteric – Who’s going to be affected by this proposal?
This is a surprisingly far-reaching proposal. It will have
some significant impact on every one of the 409 MPOs in the country, but the
impacts would be greater for some MPOs than for others. It also will affect the
transportation planning carried out by states’ departments of transportation
(DOTs), regional transportation planning organizations (RTPOs), or other entities
responsible for transportation planning in every rural area likely to become
part of an urbanized area within the next 20 years.
Potential Impact on All MPOs
Under this proposal, every current and future MPO in the US
might have to redraw its “metropolitan planning area” (MPA) boundaries. Unlike
current regulations, in which MPA boundaries are determined largely by the
MPO’s own criteria, the proposed rule would have these boundaries established
by FHWA regulation as encompassing the entirety of a Census-designated
urbanized area plus all areas forecast to become part of that urbanized area
over the next 20 years. There would continue to be some flexibility to adjust these
boundaries, such as to fit the county (or county-equivalent) boundaries of a
federally defined Metropolitan Statistical Area, to maintain boundaries set in
2005 as part of Clean Air Act nonattainment areas, to respond to circumstances
when two or more MPAs might include the same non-urbanized areas, or as
determined by agreement between an MPO and the state(s) within which it lies.
Under this proposal, the MPA boundaries – and not the
boundaries of the urbanized area – become the defining geography for the
metropolitan transportation plans and transportation improvement programs that
MPOs are required to prepare.
By broadening the geography for which MPOs have transportation
planning responsibility, the geographic area in which state DOTs or RTPOs have
planning and programming responsibility also becomes affected.
Regardless of whether an MPO’s planning area boundaries
would have to be redrawn, this proposed rule would require every single MPO in
the US to develop new or updated written “metropolitan planning agreements”
between the MPO(s), state(s) and public transportation providers in each MPA.
Such agreements are required under current regulations, but many of these
agreements haven’t been touched since the initial designation of each MPO (and
some MPOs were created more than 50 years ago).
Potential Impacts Where One Urbanized Area has Multiple MPOs
By law, regulation, and long-standing practice, the general
notion is that each Census-designated urbanized area should have its own MPO,
but that’s not always the case. Federal law and current regulation allow for
more than one MPO in an urbanized area, when warranted by the “size and
complexity” of that urbanized area. The most common circumstances where an
urbanized area has two or more MPOs are those in which significant portions of
the urbanized area are in two or more states (e.g., Philadelphia, which
includes portions of Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and for
which there are three MPOs, New York City, for which there are separate MPOs in
its New York and New Jersey portions, or Portsmouth NH, which has separate MPOs
in its Maine and New Hampshire portions), or in which one urbanized area has
grown over the decades to encompass several formerly separate urbanized areas
(e.g., Boston, which has five MPOs within its urbanized area, or Miami, with
three MPOs).
Under this proposal, a core precept becomes “one
metropolitan planning area = one transportation plan and TIP.” Even if the size
and complexity warrants multiple MPOs for a given metropolitan planning area,
the proposed rule would require there be one and only one metropolitan
transportation plan and TIP, developed and approved collaboratively by all the
MPOs in that planning area.
The proposal also would require states and MPOs to take a
fresh look at these instances where an MPA has multiple MPOs. During the
proposed two-year phase-in period, and subsequently after each decennial
census, existing MPOs and their states’ governors would have to make an
explicit determination whether the size and complexity of the planning area
continues to warrant multiple MPOs; if separate MPOs are not warranted, the
regulation would require their merger.
Regardless of whether an MPA has one or multiple MPOs, there
will be one and only one set of performance goals and targets for the MPA under
the performance-based planning requirements at 23 CFR Part 490 and FTA’s
transit safety and transit state of good repair regulations.
Potential Impacts Where Two or More Urbanized Areas are in Close Proximity
In dozens of places across the US, there are urbanized areas
that directly border one another, or that are in near proximity to one another.
Depending on the specifics of their geography and Census determinations,
different things may happen under this proposed rule:
·
If the Census-defined urbanized area boundaries
are shared, these MPOs will need to agree upon MPA boundaries so that there is
no overlap between the MPOs’ planning areas.
·
If the currently rural areas that are expected
to become urbanized over a 20-year forecast period touch or overlap, these MPOs
will need to agree upon MPA boundaries so that there is no overlap between the
MPOs’ planning areas.
·
If the 20-year forecasts suggest the possibility
that a future census may lead to the merger of currently separate urbanized
areas, these areas’ MPOs should be prepared for the possibility of being
required to merge under this rule following such a Census determination, unless
they and their governor(s) make a specific determination that the size and
complexity of that resulting MPA warrants the continuation of separate MPOs.
However, once two or more urbanized areas are merged in a Census designation,
there will be one and only one metropolitan transportation plan and TIP for
that resulting MPA, regardless of how many MPOs it may contain.
Potential Impacts When One MPO Serves Multiple MPAs
In quite a few of the country’s larger metropolitan areas,
there are planning organizations that carry out the MPO function for multiple
metropolitan planning areas. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the
San Francisco Bay area, and the Southern California Association of Governments
stand out as examples of this, as each of these bodies is the MPO for more than
a dozen metropolitan planning areas. However, there are dozens of other
instances where one body is the MPO for two or three planning areas.
Under this proposal, nothing changes for these multiple-MPA
planning organizations, other than the requirements that apply to all MPOs,
such as the need to reexamine planning area boundaries and the possible need to
develop new metropolitan planning agreements. It’s possible that these MPOs and
their states should examine the “size and complexity” of the various planning
areas, if only to assure themselves that the continued regional approach is
appropriate for the included MPAs.
FHWA & FTA Have Questions
In addition to seeking comments from interested parties on the
proposed regulation, FHWA and FTA posed some more cross-cutting questions in
the June 27 NPRM for which they would welcome responses during this comment
period, including:
“How can the statewide,
nonmetropolitan and metropolitan transportation planning processes provide
stronger incentives to states and MPOs to manage transportation funding more
effectively?”
“Should the FHWA-FTA planning rule
expressly address how states and MPOs address MPA boundaries where two or more
MPAs are contiguous or expected to become contiguous in the near future,
possibly to require the merger of MPAs, or should the rule allow states and
MPOs to tailor MPA boundaries on their own?”
“Is the proposed two-year phase-in
period for this rule appropriate?”
“Is the proposed requirement for a
joint target-setting process when there is more than one MPO in a planning area
appropriate, are there alternatives that might better accomplish the goals of a
joint metropolitan plan and TIP for the MPA, should there be any exemptions
from the joint target-setting requirement, and what criteria might be used for
determining any such exemptions?”
“The proposed rule would require,
rather than encourage, the use of coordinated data collection, analysis and
planning assumptions across the MPA, regardless of how many MPOs it may have,
and would strongly encourage the use of such practices across neighboring MPOs
that are not within the same MPA. Should the rule provide for any exemptions
from this requirement, and if so, what criteria might be used for such an
exemption?”
“If there are multiple MPOs in an
MPA that is a nonattainment or maintenance area, the proposed rule would
require them to agree on a process for a single Clean Air Act conformity
determination on their joint TIP. Should there be the possibility of an
exemption from this joint conformity determination requirement, and if so, what
criteria should be used for such an exemption?”
For More Information
Interested parties should read the full Federal Register
notice that was published on June 27, 2016, and should submit comments to the
FHWA and FTA dockets for this rule under www.regulations.gov
on or before August 26, 2016. As noted earlier, FHWA is holding an
informational webinar on this proposal, taking place on July 15, 2016. To sign
up for that webinar, interested persons should go to https://www.eventbrite.com/e/mpo-coordination-nprm-webinar-july-15-2016-registration-26326602577.
For additional information about this proposal, you may contact Harlan Miller
of FHWA at 202-366-0847, or Dwayne Weeks of FTA at 202-493-0316.
No comments:
Post a Comment