Guidebook for Assessing Collaborative Planning Efforts Among Airport and Public Planning Agencies (2020)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

4 Factors Influencing Airports and Public Planning Agencies as Part of Surface Transportation Planning Effective collaboration often depends on the institutional relationships, agency mandates, enabling legislation, and staff capability of those participating in a collaboration. It is thus important to understand some of the differences between airport organizations and regional/ local planning agencies in order to understand potential factors that motivate organizational behavior. This in turn helps identify the types of strategies that can be used to overcome barriers to effective collaboration. This chapter highlights some of the following key influencing factors for airports and transportation planning agencies, with special focus on MPOs for the more general category of planning agencies: • Enabling mandates and purpose: Statements of the mission, mandate, and responsibilities of an airport or a planning organization are generally defined by federal or state legislation. • Decision-making structure and governance: Decision-making processes reflect standard operating procedures within organizations, as well as the degree to which public transparency is desired or required. • Federal and state laws and regulations: Planning for airports and surface transportation facilities is often subject to federal and state regulations that recommend and, in some cases, require certain process steps and participants in the planning process. • Finance and funding: Sources of funding often have eligibility and use requirements, which reflect what agencies focus on and consider as part of planning and project development. • Planning processes: For some of the reasons mentioned previously, planning processes have been established to inform investment decisions, where much of the planning reflects the legislative and regulatory requirements. In addition, in almost all cases, the planning process has evolved over many decades based on experience and requirements. • Challenges and issues: Airports and planning organizations generally face distinct challenges in accomplishing their missions and complying with planning mandates. Understanding the other organization’s issues can bolster collaboration. 2.1 Enabling Mandates and Purpose The legislatively defined mandate of an agency is often one of the main factors needed to understand agency behavior. This purpose is usually included in the enabling or authorizing legislation that created the agency to begin with and that has been engrained in standard oper- ating procedures and staff capabilities over time. Important differences exist between airport planning responsibilities and those of public planning agencies (Table 1). Perhaps the most important difference, and one that characterized all the case studies undertaken for this project, was the singular focus of airport planning staff on planning as it relates to the airport. Although airport staff recognize they are part of a bigger region and that the airport is only one component C H A P T E R 2

Factors Influencing Airports and Public Planning Agencies as Part of Surface Transportation Planning 5 of a transportation system, their primary concern relates to how to make the airport more effi- cient and attractive to its users (see the “Conflicts Between Transit Access Construction and Airport Terminal Rebuilding: Salt Lake City International Airport” text box). Regional and local planning agencies, on the other hand, usually have a much broader man- date, in essence considering all facets of how a region or community develops, and thus often view an airport as one way of helping achieve broader public policy goals. An example of this difference is the importance of airport parking fees in the financial support of airport operations, thus directly or indirectly encouraging the use of automobiles going to and from the airport. This contrasts with many (especially larger) planning agencies, which want to encourage the use of multi-occupant vehicles and transit for travel in their communities. Another key difference, shown in Table 1, is that airports have the sole responsibility for planning, developing projects, and operating the facility. Thus, planning is often tied directly to individual projects. In addition, airports generally manage construction and phasing for their projects and oversee contractors. Most planning agencies, on the other hand, have the responsi- bility for planning the transportation system in a specified jurisdiction or for a defined planning study area. Other agencies implement the plan and program and oversee construction. (Notable exceptions include some California agencies such as the San Diego Association of Govern- ments.) In addition, while airports tend to look at projects as repetitive cycles linked to master planning, MPOs focus on long-range planning that is strongly tied to federal transportation funding authorizations and the associated focal areas for transportation investment (although such planning is also reflective of the broad regional transportation issues that are identified through the planning process). Airports Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Other Surface Transportation Planning Agencies Purpose: plan, build, and operate one or several airport(s) Purpose (varies) Planning only: Almost all MPOs Planning and building: Some other regional planning organizations (e.g., Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority) Planning, building, and operations: Transit agencies, city/county/state departments of transportation (DOTs), toll/turnpike authorities, and a few councils of governments (COGs), which may include MPOs and transit agencies like the Minneapolis–St. Paul MetCouncil Scope Airport planning staff mostly focused on airport issues. Some port or transportation authorities (e.g., Port of Seattle; Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority) as well as state or city DOTs operate airports. However, some agencies having airport responsibilities are multimodal agencies (e.g., Maryland DOT; City of Cleveland Department of Port Control). Scope MPOs have a multimodal perspective, with flexibility to allocate some federal funds to either transit or highway projects (Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality, Surface Transportation Program funds). Other regional planning structures such as COGs (which often host MPOs) or city/county DOTs are also multimodal. Transit agencies with surface transportation planning responsibilities are generally single-mode and focused on transit. However, some authorities plan for both transit and highways and operate transit (e.g., Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and Houston Metro). Geographical Reach Focus and responsibility is on the airport property, except for sole- purpose access roads or transit projects for some agencies (e.g., Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority). Geographical Reach In most cases, focus and responsibility extend to the borders of airport property (except for multimodal authorities including airports such as Port Authority of New York and New Jersey). Most MPOs span several counties and, in some cases, states. Other regional authorities can span several states (e.g., the Delaware River Port Authority, which operates transit in New Jersey and Pennsylvania). Transit and toll authorities can be regional (e.g., Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority) or statewide (e.g., Georgia State Road and Tollway Authority). Table 1. Enabling mandates and purpose – comparison between airports and surface transportation planning agencies.

6 Guidebook for Assessing Collaborative Planning Efforts Among Airport and Public Planning Agencies 2.2 Decision-Making Structure and Governance The planning process is influenced by the structure of an organization, how decisions are made within that organization, and the institutional relationships among organizations when joint decision making is to occur (Table 2). One of the major purposes of planning is to inform decisions. Thus, planning and planning products reflect the intent of providing this informa- tion. For example, although airports vary in how they are organized (e.g., some are a city, county, or state agency, while others might be an authority), in general, decision making within the air- port is similar to how corporations make investment decisions. The executive leadership often recommends actions to a board of directors for final approval. For planning agencies, and especially regional planning agencies, decisions are influenced by a wide range of participants. For example, MPOs are supposed to have a policy decision- making body consisting of local elected officials, with required participation of other types of agencies (such as transit agencies and state transportation agencies). In many cases, the products of such planning often reflect compromises that reflect regional distribution and equity considerations. 2.3 Federal and State Laws and Regulations One of the defining characteristics of transportation planning in the United States is the influence of laws, regulations, and executive orders that influence the substance of the plan- ning process and who participates. Often, these mandates are part of public policies out- side of transportation (e.g., environmental laws and rules) but are influential in defining the transportation planning process. In other cases, federal and state legislation are part of the major driving forces dictating what a transportation planning process should include (e.g., federal transportation planning regulations). As shown in Table 3, legislation and regu- lations influencing airport and surface transportation planning differ by both source and requirements. Conflicts Between Transit Access Construction and Airport Terminal Rebuilding: Salt Lake City International Airport The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) coordinated the building of light-rail access to the airport with Salt Lake City International Airport. While the airport’s director is appointed by the mayor of Salt Lake City, UTA’s Board of Trustees comprises nominees of both local jurisdictions and statewide officials. The location of the airport rail station was a significant part of the planning discus- sion. The airport had preliminary plans in the works to completely rebuild the terminals, which made it difficult to identify the best location for the station. In the end, UTA agreed to help pay for rebuilding the station when the airport rebuilt the terminals. Within 4 years of the initial station opening, the airport was rebuilding the terminal, leading to dramatic changes in station plans and construction costs (from $5 million to a range of $60 million to $90 million). This case is an example of the necessity of collaborating and integrating airport master plans and transit plans in order to reduce redundancy and generate the best planning outcome.

Factors Influencing Airports and Public Planning Agencies as Part of Surface Transportation Planning 7 Efficiency of Governance Models to Guarantee Metropolitan Planning Organization/ Airport Authority Collaboration: Minneapolis–St. Paul Several institutional mechanisms guarantee communication and collaboration between the MPO and the airport authority in the Twin Cities. First, from a governance standpoint, Minneapolis–St. Paul’s MPO, the Metropolitan Council (MetCouncil), is led by 16 council members, with staggered terms, appointed by the Minnesota governor for a given district of the MPO’s area. The Minneapolis–St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission (MSPMAC) has eight commissioners (also appointed by the Minnesota governor) for the metropolitan area who have districts coterminous with the MPO’s districts. This allows each MSPMAC commissioner to have two counterparts at the MetCouncil who represent the same geographic area and with whom they can work directly. Second, the MetCouncil has oversight of capital projects above $5 million at Minneapolis–St. Paul International and above $1 million at reliever airports in the metropolitan area. Third, the MSPMAC contributes to the funding of airport planning at the MPO by state statute by sharing the cost of an aviation planner position at the MetCouncil. Airports Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Other Surface Transportation Planning Agencies Key Numbers 395 airports in the United States having more than 10,000 enplanements per year More than 3,300 airports in the 2017 FAA’s National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems Key Numbers More than 400 MPOs in the United States for urbanized areas with population greater than 50,000 More than 900 transit agencies Governance Airports may be housed within other agencies, which influences who has ultimate decision-making authority. Examples are: – Port authorities (e.g., Port Authority of New York and New Jersey) – Airport authorities (e.g., Omaha Airport Authority) – State departments of transportation (e.g., Maryland DOT) – City departments (e.g., City of Philadelphia) – County departments (e.g., Palm Beach County) – Other types of agencies (e.g., Dallas–Fort Worth Regional Airport Board, the members of which are appointed by both cities) In rare cases, airports can be part of airport regional authorities with similar geographic scope as MPOs (e.g., San Diego County Regional Airport Authority) Governance MPOs can be part of various host agencies; they can be found within: – Councils of government, with whom they often share governance structures (e.g., National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board within the Washington Metropolitan Area Council of Governments) – Cities (e.g., Anchorage) – Counties (e.g., Ulster County, New York) – Stand-alone organizations (e.g., Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission) City/county/state departments of transportation (DOTs) are part of their respective jurisdictions’ governments Transit districts, transit authorities are governed by a board of directors representing local jurisdictions (see next row) Tollway authorities have boards of directors as well, which can be locally or statewide appointed, or a combination of the two (e.g., Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority). Board of Directors Boards of external directors, appointed by elected officials or bodies, are frequent for independent authorities. City- or county-owned airports may not have an Board of Directors Board of directors is composed of representatives of local jurisdictions for MPOs, other regional planning organizations, transit agencies, and tollway authorities. City/county/state DOTs may not have a board of independent independent board of external directors who are appointed by and accountable to elected officials, similar to city, county, or state DOTs. Senior management team members are competitively hired and salaried employees of the airport. Senior management teams are typically not part of the board of directors but may report to them. directors who are appointed by and accountable to elected officials, similar to city- or county-owned airports. Senior management team members are competitively hired and salaried employees of the MPO. Table 2. Decision-making structure and governance – comparison between airports and surface transportation planning agencies. (continued on next page)

8 Guidebook for Assessing Collaborative Planning Efforts Among Airport and Public Planning Agencies Airports MPOs and Other Surface Transportation Planning Agencies Federal Authority: U.S. Department of Transportation: FAA Federal Authority: U.S. Department of Transportation: Federal Transit Administration Federal Highway Administration Federal Railroad Administration Key Federal Rules, Regulations, and Guideline Documents Federal legislation: – Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970 – Airport and Airway Revenue Act of 1970 – National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 FAA Orders: – Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Handbook – FAA Airport Compliance Manual—Order 5190.6B FAA Rules: – 2004 Revisions to Passenger Facility Charge Rule for Compensation to Air Carriers FAA Advisory Circulars to which federally obligated airports are expected to adhere to: – Airport Terminal Planning, 150/5360-13A, updated 2018 – Airport System Planning Process, Change 1 to 150/5070- 7, updated 2015 – Airport Master Plans, Change 2 to 150/5070-6B, dated 2015 – Airport Design, 150/5300-13A, dated 2012 – Airport Land Use Compatibility (forthcoming) Other FAA Guidelines: Key Federal Rules, Regulations, and Guideline Documents Clean Air Act of 1990 (as amended) Civil Rights Act of 1964 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 Surface Transportation Acts U.S. Department of Transportation Rules (e.g., Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning and Metropolitan Transportation Planning) – Bulletin 1: Best Practices—Surface Access to Airports (2004) State Regulations Airports have to follow state regulations in addition to federal regulations (e.g., in Minnesota, additional regulations of land uses and height requirements beyond federal regulations). State Regulations States have significant power to determine how MPOs are set up. Regional transportation planning organizations and transit and tollway authorities are often authorized by state legislation. State DOTs or transit departments have varying degrees of oversight over local agencies. Table 3. Federal and state laws and regulations – comparison between airports and surface transportation planning agencies. Airports Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Other Surface Transportation Planning Agencies Internal Governance Similar to city/county/state DOTs (but in contrast to MPOs), airports are generally organized like administrations and private businesses, with departments, executives, and staff. Some airport authorities have committee structures similar to MPOs and transit authorities (e.g., Minneapolis–St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission). Internal Governance MPOs are organized by departments, but a significant part of their planning duties is governed by technical committees whose members represent different modal agencies and local jurisdictions, with assistance from the MPO staff. Independent transit agencies can follow a similar model of committees, constituted by board members (e.g., Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority). City/county/state DOTs are organized by departments, similar to airports. Table 2. (Continued).

Factors Influencing Airports and Public Planning Agencies as Part of Surface Transportation Planning 9 2.4 Financing and Funding Among the most important influences on transportation planning are the laws and regula- tions defining project eligibility for funding and, in the case of bonding, the requirements related to bond terms. For example, one of the major justifications for a federally required transportation planning process is that it must lead to a transportation improvement program (TIP) that outlines the investments in transportation that will occur in the MPO region in the near future. The intent is that, through the planning process, such investment decisions should be informed of the many different consequences of such investments, both the expected positive outcomes and the negative impacts that might occur. Table 4 shows the differences in financing and funding for airports and surface transporta- tion planning agencies. More information is provided on specific funding and financing issues for airports, which are different from those of surface transportation planning agencies. One of the key issues facing airport improvements is finding the funding necessary to support improvements to ground access. The types of questions concerning such funding sources relate to the eligibility criteria for the use of such funds, the extent to which they can be leveraged with other funding sources, and some of the other considerations that could be factored into a decision to pursue the funding source. Table 5 shows different types of ground access funding sources that have been used in the United States. The FAA reviews use of airport revenues for ground-access facilities off airport property or not exclusive to airport use on a case-by-case basis. Note that some grandfathered airports have more freedom with respect to using their revenues for non-airport projects [see “FAA Needs to More Accurately Account for Airport Sponsors’ Grandfathered Payments” (U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector General 2018)]. Funding for the Access Road to Denver International Airport, Peña Boulevard The Department of Aviation of the City and County of Denver, which owns and operates Denver International Airport (DIA), has used airport funds to pay for the construction of a highway to the airport—Peña Boulevard. Originally this road was exclusively serving the airport, satisfying FAA grant assurance #25 regarding the use of airport funds. This grant assurance requires that “all revenues generated by the airport . . . will be expended by it for the capital or operating costs of the airport; the local airport system; or other local facilities which are owned or operated by the owner or operator of the airport and which are directly and substantially related to the actual air transportation of passengers or property” (FAA 2014). However, the area around DIA has become more developed since the airport opened in 1995. For instance, the Colorado Department of Transportation is coordinating an Aerotropolis Visioning Study to develop the area south of the airport in particular. As a result, traffic on Peña Boulevard has become increas- ingly mixed between airport users and non-airport users. The Department of Aviation and the FAA have come to an agreement on how much of the operating and maintenance expenditures of Peña Boulevard can be paid through airport funds. This agreement included a clause specifying that the initial funding of the road would be paid using airport funds exclusively, as initially planned. However, in the future, airport funds will only contribute to the maintenance costs based on the percentage of airport users traveling on the road.

10 Guidebook for Assessing Collaborative Planning Efforts Among Airport and Public Planning Agencies Airports Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Other Surface Transportation Planning Agencies Federal Legislation Airports need to comply with grant assurances when receiving federal funds. Grant assurances include contractual language based on statute. Funding Airports receive federal funds from dedicated FAA funds. Airports receive air travel–specific (aeronautical) revenues (passenger facility charges). Airports receive nonaeronautical revenues, such as parking fees, tenant leases, and fees on taxis/car rentals. Airports set airline rates and charges in compensatory, residual, and hybrid arrangements,* which can affect how parking and ground transportation improvements are financed. Funding In contrast to other local organizations such as transit districts or other regional transportation planning organizations such as the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, MPOs are not allowed to levy taxes or fees. Note that some councils of governments that have the same membership as the MPO do levy taxes (e.g., the San Diego Association of Governments). Transit agencies receive federal formula funds for operations and capital and (generally) dedicated revenues stemming from local or state taxes. Highway departments/state DOTs receive federal funds allocated to each state from the Highway Trust Fund, as well as dedicated revenues stemming from local or state taxes. Toll authorities mostly receive toll revenues. Financing Airports routinely issue revenue bonds as nontaxable bonds or, less frequently, taxable bonds. They can often use more sophisticated forms of financing, including public–private partnership (P3) mechanisms. Financing MPOs are not allowed to issue bonds. Many (but not all) state DOTs/transit agencies are allowed to issue nontaxable bonds or enter P3s (e.g., New York City Metropolitan Transportation Authority is one of the largest municipal issuers in the United States). Some regional planning/highway authorities (e.g., Hampton Roads Transportation Accountability Commission) issue nontaxable bonds to finance capital projects. Spending Airports reinvest part of their revenues on capital investment (landside: terminal, curbs, etc.; airside: runways, taxiways, etc.) projects. Airport operations are self-funded. Airports may not spend their revenues on off- airport projects, except in specific circumstances (airport-exclusive access roads, etc.). Spending MPOs must approve and include federally supported and significant local projects in their plans (both long-range and short-term, see the Planning Processes section) in order for local agencies that design and build these projects to receive federal funds: state highway departments must spend federal dollars in urban areas on projects included in MPO plans. MPOs allocate multimodal funds such as from the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality and Surface Transportation Program to local projects/local agencies. Transit agencies and city/county/state DOTs spend their funds on operations and capital. (Some have dedicated revenues to one or the other—for instance the New York City Metropolitan Transportation Authority.) Source: FAA 2009a. *Federal law does not require a single rate-setting approach. Accordingly, sponsors may use a residual, compensatory, hybrid, or any other rate-setting methodology so long as the methodology is consistent for similarly situated aeronautical users and conforms to the Rates and Charges Policy (FAA 2009b): • Residual agreements that permit aeronautical users to receive a cross-credit of nonaeronautical revenues are generally referred to as residual agreements. In a residual agreement, the airport applies excess nonaeronautical revenue to the airfield costs to reduce air carrier fees; in exchange, the air carriers agree to cover any shortfalls if the nonaeronautical revenue is insufficient to cover airport costs. In a residual agreement, aeronautical users may assume part or all of the liability for nonaeronautical costs. A sponsor may cross-credit nonaeronautical revenues to aeronautical users even in the absence of an agreement. However, except by agreement, a sponsor may not require aeronautical users to cover losses generated by nonaeronautical facilities. A residual rate structure may be accomplished only with agreement of the users. • A compensatory agreement is one in which a sponsor assumes all liability for airport costs and retains all airport revenue for its own use in accordance with federal requirements. Aeronautical users are charged only for the costs of the aeronautical facilities they use. A compensatory rate structure may be imposed on users by ordinance. • Sponsors frequently adopt hybrid rate-setting systems, which employ elements of both residual and compensatory approaches. Such agreements may charge aeronautical users for the use of aeronautical facilities with aeronautical users assuming additional responsibility for airport costs in return for a sharing of nonaeronautical revenues that offset aeronautical costs. Table 4. Financing and funding – comparison between airports and surface transportation planning agencies.

Factors Influencing Airports and Public Planning Agencies as Part of Surface Transportation Planning 11 2.5 Planning Processes Federally supported (and, in most cases, state-supported) transportation planning is accompanied by requirements on what documents must be produced, what factors should be considered in producing these documents, and (often) who should be part of the process (e.g., requirements for public participation) (see Table 6). Such requirements also dictate the planning-time horizon. One of the major differences between airports and planning agencies is that airports are responsible for project-level planning, whereas planning agencies in most cases conduct general planning efforts; project planning is the responsibility of the agencies that own a particular facility. The general exception to this has been environmental studies, where many MPOs sponsor preliminary corridor studies that include preliminary or conceptual engineer- ing designs. Note that some planning agencies, in particular in California, also implement and build transportation improvements (e.g., the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, LA Metro). 2.6 Challenges and Issues Although not a generic characteristic of transportation planning (because such character- istics will change from time to time), airports and surface transportation planning agencies will face similar challenges in some cases and different challenges in others because of the roles they play in a region’s decision-making process. Based on the results of this research, Table 7 shows some of the similarities and differences in the challenges and issues found in transportation plan- ning. Both similarities and differences can become a point of collaboration among the different participants in transportation planning as agencies jointly determine how to deal with the issues. Funding Source Eligible Can Be Leveraged Possible Considerations in Use of Such Funding Passenger facility charges Airline opposition for non-airside use Airport Improvement Program entitlements Explicit criteria on such use* Discretionary Airport Improvement Program Often low priority as compared to other airport needs Aeronautical revenue Airline opposition for non-airside use Nonaeronautical revenue Could be viewed as diversion of revenues from other needs Customer facility charges Use of customer facility charges often viewed as dedicated to customer facility improvements (e.g., rental car facility) Local non-airport funds Often considerable competition for such funds (and local governments view airport-related improvements as the responsibility of the airport) * Eligible access roads. Airport Improvement Program grants can be used for airport access roads that must meet the following conditions, as provided in the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) Handbook, Appendix P (FAA 2019): • The access road may extend only to the nearest public highway of sufficient capacity to accommodate airport traffic. • The access road must be located on the airport or within a right-of-way acquired by the airport sponsor. • The access road must exclusively serve airport traffic. Any section of the roadway that does not exclusively serve airport traffic is ineligible. More than one access road is eligible if the airport surface traffic is of sufficient volume to require more than one road. Related facilities such as acceleration and deceleration lanes, exit and entrance ramps, street lighting, and bus stops are also eligible when they are a necessary part of an eligible road. Certain access roads and related facilities are not eligible for AIP funding, including the following: – Roads necessary to maintain FAA facilities installed under the Facilities and Equipment Program (which is budgeted separately from AIP), – Roads exclusively serving industrial or non-aviation–related areas or facilities, and – Roads exclusively used for connecting parking facilities to an access road. Table 5. Traditional airport ground access funding sources.

12 Guidebook for Assessing Collaborative Planning Efforts Among Airport and Public Planning Agencies Airports Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Other Surface Transportation Planning Agencies Federal Mandates* Airport Layout Plans: Any Airport Improvement Program–eligible project that an airport sponsor wishes to receive federal funding for must be shown on an FAA- approved Airport Layout Plan. FAA Guidelines* Airport Master Plan: In general, airports should update their comprehensive plans—20- year airport master plans—approximately every 5 years, or whenever warranted by significant changes, such as sizeable changes in demand compared with previous projections. Federal Mandates For MPOs: – Metropolitan Transportation Plan: At least 20 years planning horizon, updated every 4 to 5 years, fiscally constrained – Transportation Improvement Program: Fiscally constrained, updated at least every 4 years, for at least a 4-year horizon. Local projects must be in the metropolitan transportation plan and Transportation Improvement Program to receive federal funding or be considered significant projects for air quality conformity determinations. – Unified Planning Work Plan: Annual or biennial statement of work identifying the planning priorities and activities to be carried out within a metropolitan planning area For state DOTs: – State transportation improvement plans – State rail plans State Mandates A variety of state mandates exist for airports. For instance, Minnesota requires that the Metropolitan Airports Commission, which owns and operates Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport, reimburse the MPO for costs incurred by the MPO for its airport planning activities. Many of these mandates are related to the environmental assessment processes that must be followed when major changes are made to an airport. For example, many state environmental laws require opportunities for public involvement in the planning and environmental processes that precede project selection. Another example is the Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) standards for noise control, abatement, and mitigation that define and State Mandates A variety of state mandates exist for surface transportation planning agencies. For instance, Virginia mandates that its MPOs, called transportation planning organizations, coordinate with transit agencies for operations planning, even beyond capital projects. For Transit Agencies Medium-term capital plans (e.g., Virginia) Strategic plans (e.g., Virginia) establish parameters for the Airport Noise Abatement Program, airport noise standards, and airport noise impact boundaries.** Project-Specific Planning: Occurs for those projects that are needed in the near term, such as runway reconfiguration or terminal area redevelopment Project-Specific Planning: Generally, not an MPO-level responsibility, but done at city/county/state DOT or transit agency levels * A mandate is a requirement established by law or regulation that must be followed by the participants in the process or development of a required product. Guidelines are suggested best practices for accomplishing the mandate. For example, federal law requires that opportunities for public involvement be part of the process of developing regional transportation plans; technical guidelines are also provided by the U.S. DOT on how this engagement might be achieved. ** Oregon Department of Aviation 2003. Table 6. Planning processes – comparison between airports and surface transportation planning agencies.

Factors Influencing Airports and Public Planning Agencies as Part of Surface Transportation Planning 13 Airports Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Other Surface Transportation Planning Agencies Funding: Limited funding resources for airside, landside, and (particularly) ground-access projects Funding: Limited funding resources for the needs expressed as part of the transportation planning process Potential Diverging Views: Airlines have a say on investment projects (including access) and how revenues are spent. Potential Diverging Views: Conflicts among jurisdictions on project selection and equity, in particular for multi-jurisdiction transit agencies and MPOs Potential Converging Views • For large airports in particular, promoting a range of access modes to the airport is often consistent with the focus of surface transportation plans. • Development-related project planning near airports (Aerotropolis) can take advantage of the convening ability of MPOs and of the land use and development data and forecasts that MPOs generate. Potential Converging Views • Airlines have a say on investment projects (including access) and how revenues are spent. • MPOs generate considerable data and forecasts on expected trip growth and development patterns that are useful for airport planning. Potential Conflicts: Neighboring jurisdictions have become a major source of input on noise issues in particular. For large airports, traffic generation of the airport and of airport- related development has created pressures to fix the issue. Potential Conflicts: Equitable spending of regional funds that account for mobility and accessibility needs has become an increasingly important issue. There is often much debate about relative investment between transit and other forms of transportation. When involved in project-level issues, environmental review and permitting can become controversial. Requirements for open and transparent planning lead to a participatory process. Planning Power: Strong within airport boundaries—varies according to the airport/governance structure—but limited space for development/flexibility for planning, especially in urban areas Planning Power: Often limited decision-making power (but varies significantly across MPOs), more power at city/county/state department of transportation level Table 7. Challenges and issues – comparison between airports and surface transportation planning agencies. Use of Airport Layout Plans as a Tool for Airport Access Planning: The Example of Baltimore/Washington International The Maryland Aviation Administration (MAA) provides an interesting example of the full use airports can make of Airport Layout Plans (ALPs) as a tool for airport access planning. Per federal mandate, any AIP-eligible project that an airport sponsor wishes to receive federal funding for must be shown on an FAA-approved ALP. As a result, airports like Baltimore/Washington International (BWI) may update their ALPs more frequently than they update their master plans, as they gradually execute the different components of these plans in order to guarantee that they will receive federal funding. But ALPs are a set of drawings that may go beyond the federal mandates in showing planning concepts or ideas, for instance of strategic roadway improvements near the airport as in the case of BWI. MAA shows failing intersections with low levels of service (requiring for instance separation between commercial and freight vehicles) on its ALPs for BWI, to highlight airport access issues and illustrate potential solutions to these issues as placeholders. On the transit side, MAA shows how an Amtrak line could be moved to accommodate future development, as well as how a future people-mover could connect to the existing light-rail station and future parking. The ALP can be a valuable planning tool for engagement with other state modal agencies for highways and transit.