Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Strategies for Future Success (2022)

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.

APPENDIX B Regional Roundtable Summaries Regional Roundtable Discussion Sample Meeting Agenda Welcome and Introductions Research Overview PowerPoint Presentation Questions to Consider During Regional Roundtable Discussions Part I of Regional Roundtable Discussion • MPO Directors’ overview of their 3C planning process • Discussion of Challenges and Opportunities experienced and facing MPOs and agency part­ ners in the 3C planning process • Identification of potential enhancements or changes to the 3C planning process • Noteworthy best practices Part II of Regional Roundtable Discussion • MPO major policy issues identified from Polling • MPO and agency partner potential actions to address MPO major policy issues using the 3C planning process Next Steps Regional Roundtable Discussion Reports Follow-up Questions and Resource Materials Sample Regional Roundtable Discussion Questions The metropolitan planning organization (MPO) attendees were selected based upon recom­ mendations received from the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations and the National Association of Regional Councils. Agency partner attendees were selected based on recommendations received from the MPOs within each state. For two multi-state roundtables, the course of the discussion was unique, depending on the specific contexts of the work being undertaken at the MPOs. There were no non-MPO participants at the two multi-state Regional Roundtables. Participants were informed at the outset of each Regional Roundtable that the objective of this project is to develop a comprehensive resource to inform and guide the evolving roles and functions of MPOs in partnership with their key stakeholders for the 21st century. Regional Roundtable discussions are intended to provide MPOs and their agency partners an opportunity to examine the storied 3C (continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive) planning process and identify how that process could be improved to better address MPO major policy issues. Part I of B-1   

B-2   Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Strategies for Future Success the discussion focuses on identifying best practices, challenges, and opportunities in implement­ ing the 3C planning process. Part II of the discussion focuses on identifying some major policy issues facing MPOs and their agency partners and how to collectively best address those issues in recognition of the following shifts to each “C:” • Continuing—Many MPOs have a long institutional life, although new MPOs will emerge and existing boundaries may change as a result of the United States Census; • Cooperative—MPOs need to navigate changes to relationships with adjacent MPOs and existing or new provider partnerships; and • Comprehensive—Comprehensive now encapsulates rapidly evolving technologies, demographic/cultural trends, and potentially expanded or altered roles such as economic development or project funding. Part I:  Questions to consider during the Regional Roundtable discussion: How can MPOs and their agency partners be poised and equipped to better address current and future opportunities and challenges (pandemics, market disruptions, or other unexpected events)? What strategies can be used to improve the efficacy of MPOs and their agency partners in implementing the 3C planning process? Should the roles, responsibilities, and resources of MPOs change in relation to their state, regional, and local transportation partners? What are some noteworthy best practices in the 3C planning process that could be replicated (or not) by other MPOs or Agencies? Part II:  Addressing major policy issues using the 3C Planning Process In advance of the Regional Roundtable discussion, the MPOs and their agency partners will be asked to identify three MPO major policy issues that are facing MPOs and their agency partners. Examples might include changing demographics, unexpected events such as pandemics, or iden­ tifying planning requirements that could use additional guidance from research institutions, FHWA, FTA, or a state. The results of the polling will be presented at the Regional Roundtable discussion. Afterward, the attendees will be asked to describe what steps they could take in tandem with one another to address MPOs’ major policy issues. This might include, for example, enhancements or changes to the 3C planning process. It could also include changes to MPO activities such as long-range transportation plans, data and analysis, corridor and area studies, transit, and bicycle/pedestrian planning or programs. Summary of Regional Roundtable: Idaho–Montana–Wyoming February 10, 2021 2:00 pm–3:30 pm EST Attendees Aaron Wilson, Missoula MPO Tom Mason, Director, Cheyenne MPO Mori Byington, Director, Bannock TPO (BTPO) 

Regional Roundtable Summaries   B-3   Wade Carroll, Project Manager, Metro Analytics, PLLC Scott Lane, Principal Investigator, Metro Analytics, PLLC Matt Miller, Principal Analyst, Metro Analytics, PLLC Summary of Discussion Topics MPOs are very partnership- and collaboration-oriented. Describe a recent experience where such a partnership worked or one that did not work out as well as hoped, and why. • BTPO: New interchange in the north part of the community; working with local partners and state DOT and private development; moved to a secondary/support role – typical as project moves from planning to design to construction; first PPP in Idaho; overcame federal/state requirements to facilitate the project development. • Missoula: Mountain Line transit provider; zero-fare transit; MPO worked with transit pro­ vider using CMAQ dollars annually to keep it zero-fare; ridership nearly doubled in three years (70% in two years), which led to more grants to get electric vehicles in part based on an increase in ridership; $350,000/year to transit leveraged many millions of dollars in grants, bus stops, access; transit service is its own taxing jurisdiction. • Cheyenne: Connect 2045 LRTP worked with the city on a future land-use map (which is typical in terms of their coordination) that fed into the land-use component of the TDM. • Cheyenne: Worked with CDOT on passenger rail of the North Front Range; some talk of doing additional planning with Colorado and Cheyenne MPO would manage that type of project; the study is moving forward and evolving. • Cheyenne: Cheyenne Frontier Days talked about doing a transportation plan (park-and-ride, bus system, circulation) that was successful; some implemented and more coming. Tectonic shifts are happening nationally and globally in demographics, technology, and communication. How are these changes impacting your organization, or have they impacted it? • Missoula: An increase in e-bikes that can be seen and discussed at bike shops (popular desti­ nation and more people moving into the state/area; some retirees and some aging challenges); had to manage the e-bikes on infrastructure that was designed and built in the 1990s (pedes­ trian, scooters, and e-bikes on a 10 ft multi-use paths) so there is a re thinking of regulation and design. • Missoula: Getting different people engaging through virtual means; there is a struggle to get other groups to get access to computer/internet; hard to have one-on-one in a virtual setting. • Cheyenne: Started LRTP update with an economic forecast of 1% and modified to 1.28% per year and now that seems too low—many leaving California and Colorado to Wyoming; Microsoft has been expanding operations; a new business park on the south side of downtown with another new, high-tech company is coming in. • Cheyenne: Growth is forcing new thinking on how demographics are impacting traffic forecasts. • Cheyenne: Going to a virtual public meeting format (MetroQuest for surveys) that got simi­ lar or greater attendance; probably staying with virtual for a while going to a mix later on (virtual and in person); shifted to social media for advertising using a consultant to modify/ update the MPO web page/Facebook page; probably not reaching non-tech-savvy parts of the community. • BTPO: Transfer of people moving out to other urban areas (younger people for jobs) and older people that are retirees or remote workers coming into the area; people working at a site leaving and people working from home, coming into the area. 

B-4   Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Strategies for Future Success • BTPO: This may impact the TDM, including call centers (but those have not changed traffic volumes). • All: Rebound in Cheyenne; university workers still down and may “stick” post-COVID with work-from-home and telecommute percent (Missoula). • Missoula: Came up with Missoula in Motion, a permanent telework policy; emphasizes tele­ work more as an option and is now part of the conversation. • BTPO: Borrow from TDM practices in larger areas. • Cheyenne: No one really knows how much the current emphasis on work-from-home is going to settle in for the long term; we are using sampled cell phone data platforms to under­ stand that trend. • BTPO: The smaller the organization the harder it is to switch/understand the transition to virtual and online methods, and it is pretty expensive to apply. • Cheyenne: The state is going to hurt from the decline in mineral royalties (e.g., oil) and may stop getting some state allocations. • Missoula: Montana is also struggling. • Cheyenne: Fortunate in that there are only two MPOs in the state for PL104 and transit appor­ tionment; may reduce the number of employees in the coming year with $850,000 annually; implementation of plans is hard because local governments do not have the dollars to build many of the planned projects albeit without frills. • BTPO: Depends on what state you are in for state allocations and where you are at, including with project funding. • BTPO: Biggest challenge is keeping pace with requirements and new tools; being in non- attainment forces a four-year MTP cycle. • BTPO: Finding a scope of work for things that the MPO wants to take on can be challenging. • Missoula: Less control over funding like the TMAs; prior to the FAST Act there was more flexibility in terms of direct suballocations; now it is very competitive, and there is less local control over selection and implementation. • Missoula: The TMA/larger MPO can direct program dollars; the veto authority is crude and not as useful as direct programming; still struggling to get through to subsequent phases of one project that has been going on for 30 years; somewhat at the mercy of the state DOT, so if they do not buy into MPO priorities it is problematic for getting things done. • BTPO: Suballocation to urban/rural areas that had to figure out suballocation; new TMA sharply reduced the amount of funding for other MPOs because of federal requirements for direct allocation to TMAs. • Cheyenne: Wyoming keeps CMAQ dollars for the state. • Staff: Trouble with experienced staff attraction (wage rates) but lots of candidates with low levels of experience; higher housing costs also make it a tough sell (Missoula); county office is useful for training then move on to Colorado for higher-paying jobs but fortunate to keep good staff. • Missoula: Some of the changes (e.g., CAVs) are not an immediate concern, so incorporation into the planning process has not been a concern that the regular plan update process (every four years) cannot accommodate. • Missoula: The MPO staff cross-pollinates work with the city itself and that helps create an ability to identify needs and allocate resources through the city; manages infrastructure and transportation planning. • BTPO: The four-year cycle is perhaps too frequent because there is not enough time to work on the ideas coming out of a plan – the community is getting weary; smaller MPOs would be more effective if they were not constantly undergoing plan updates. • Cheyenne: Award-winning PlanCheyenne had a comprehensive plan, then took longer to get the subsequent plan approved, then was late on the follow-up plan with the feds, forcing an interim transportation plan. • Cheyenne: When an area starts to grow then a minimum five-year window is important. 

Regional Roundtable Summaries   B-5   Since MPOs are principally a policy board composed largely of local governments without much day-to-day authority to implement projects, describe how your MPO has worked to make itself more effective, practical, and relevant to local and state agencies. • Cheyenne: One city/one county with good participation from both entities, although staff representation can change frequently; directly involved with city/county development actions (reviews of site plans, annexations, etc.) for access control and other regulatory compliance; active with city/county staff on projects (steering committees, consultant selection); taken over pavement management programs for city/county because of key staff (re-)hire; pay for some elements of the transit program including an update of the TDP • BTPO: (1) until 10 years ago the MPO had dollars/tech to do studies that the cities did not have (e.g., street centerline file) but has decreased so now MOU for traffic operations and implementation on state highways; (2) new MPOs/TMAs may decrease 30% to 40% of funds that will have to be made up with local funds • Missoula: The MPO works hard to be present at many meetings with other agencies; again, relevancy is improved by being integrated with the city of Missoula; contribute PL104 funds to support transportation input to master/area plans; struggle to integrate land use and trans­ portation planning and how to actuate those with more questions coming up more often Is there a private partnership or collaboration that you value today, or is there one (or more) that ideally will happen in the future for your MPO to be even more effective and efficient? • BTPO: Tasked with inventorying the pedestrian facilities since 2006, which has proven to be nearly impossible, so they partnered with local universities and produced one database for use with all agencies and has worked so well they are considering other collaborations (e.g., sign inventory) • Cheyenne: The MPO helped get the city and county started in GIS but eventually moved to the background as those entities acquired their own capabilities; GIS policy committee/executive committee has formed (Laramie County GIS cooperative) • Cheyenne: Cheyenne LEADS, Visit Cheyenne, and Chamber work closely together to drive priorities forward and have worked with them on projects down through the years to achieve common goals (e.g., wayfinding sign system was put out to bid and managed by MPO) • Cheyenne: Air Force base will be modernizing nuclear missiles starting in Cheyenne and will help them out (will add to growth and transportation needs) • Missoula: Neighborhood organization partnerships and working with traffic management program focusing on local streets (speeding) and using that focus on neighborhood greenways/ bike boulevards, traffic circles ($1000 or less treatment), placemaking traffic calming (murals added to public space, open street events)—tying all of this back to transportation projects and priorities and empower them. Talk about a project, process, or partnership (not already discussed) that you are particularly proud of and why. It could also be something you are looking forward to starting or is just underway now. • Cheyenne: Neighborhood traffic safety plan and process for neighborhoods that come to them with concerns about speeding traffic, and they analyze and find appropriate solutions as needed. • Cheyenne: Active in developing greenways (40 miles) with the concern being maintenance; now neighborhoods and developers are building out the system at their own cost; Reed Rail Corridor is an industrial corridor to be converted into a pedestrian/bicycle redevelopment area (restaurants, bars, etc.); Union Pacific Depot provided them with STP funds going from threat of being demolished to a keystone of success in downtown. 

B-6   Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Strategies for Future Success Key Takeaways • MPOs are engaging in a wide variety of partnerships outside of their traditional FHWA/ DOT and member agency partners. They are working with developers, neighborhood groups, chambers of commerce, and transit agencies. One-off or limited projects are a good way to incrementally build capacity. • The pandemic-induced shift to online engagement was difficult for smaller MPOs. They lacked the capacity to respond. Being able to engage through social media was suddenly critical. Online meetings have raised the issue of the digital divide, and it remains difficult to have ad hoc one-on-one conversations. • The long-term effects of the pandemic on travel behavior create great uncertainty regarding future travel demands. • Local matching for federal funding is becoming a limitation; both being able to find the match, and the match requirements for federal aid projects are drowning out local projects. • The increasing number of MPOs and TMAs is splitting the share of available funding at the same time that the FAST Act unfunded mandates are requiring more of MPOs. Some MPOs were already having trouble completing a four-year plan on a regular cycle. Summary of Regional Roundtable: Washington, DC–Maryland–Virginia February 25, 2021 1:00 pm–2:30 pm EST Attendees Samuel S. Belfield, Senior Transportation Engineer, Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) Robert B. Case, PE, PhD, Chief Transportation Engineer, HRTPO Pavithra Parthasarathi, Deputy Executive Director, HRTPO Andrew Meese, Systems Performance Planning Program Director, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) Kanathur Srikanth, Deputy Executive Director Metropolitan Planning, MWCOG Bala Akundi, Principal Transportation Engineer, Baltimore Metropolitan Council (BMC) Don Halligan, Senior Transportation Planner, BMC Summary of Discussion Topics MPOs are very partnership- and collaboration-oriented. Describe a recent experience where such a partnership worked or one that did not work out as well as hoped and why? • MWCOG: Partnerships work sometimes and sometimes not; not having direct authority has emphasized the importance of partnering. There are two perspectives: regional and own member agencies. Regional transportation authorities have funding authority but are not MPO members (their member governments are often MPO members). A lot of time is spent on policies and principles when there are 27 decision-makers to agree on a single project or program. It is necessary to allow a lot of flexibility to carry those actions out. Examples: (1) After 9/11, cross- jurisdictional security issues emerged then created a new entity for three state DOTs, transit operators, Homeland Security, and others that are staffed and some funding by the MPO; and (2) Implementing STP set-aside in arrangement with three state DOTs to address multi- state region. Partnerships in core activities often involve growing an action in one direction or another, which requires reaching out during an operational (not planning) time frame. 

Regional Roundtable Summaries   B-7   • HRTPO: Established military transportation needs: (1) highway network analysis for military- used roads, (2) military community survey useful for outreach and input, and (3) sea-level rise-related issues that might impact the military. (Part of TRB committee on military affairs.) Other partnerships are with VDOT, ports, etc. to deliver for clients; clients/customers are local governments. Partner with StreetLight Data, Inc. (informal, private sector) accessed through a contract with VDOT. Citizens committees (e.g., bicycles that cover a portion of the region) that may request studies; rail/public transportation are members but also partners. Biggest channel for partnership is through data distribution via studies that others can use to implement strategies and recommendations. • BMC: The Maryland Highway Safety Office is producing highway safety plans and is the recip­ ient of a significant amount of funding ($300k–$400k) that funds a full-time coordinator position developing local safety plans (four completed, three more about to begin). It may be easier or less threatening for the MPO to coordinate meetings than other parties. Also, local governments, the disabled community, worked on a grant application with the state but developed a partnership that can work in the future for other opportunities. These actions help break down silos and address challenging issues like social equity. BMC received a HUD sustainability grant which in part dealt with transportation but also workforce hous­ ing that produced significant results for the region and attracted a lot of positive attention and credit. This still serves as a way of coordinating housing groups that are ongoing. Some advocacy organizations have attempted to work with an MPO to gain an advantage over other entities. Tectonic shifts are happening nationally and globally in demographics, technology, and communication. How are these changes impacting your organization, or have they impacted it? • The pandemic is a totally separate category from technology, which is not new at all; the pan­ demic has had some sweeping impacts on land use, work patterns, etc. Climate change and resiliency are a challenge to the MPO to understand the role and what they can do about it. AVs and planning for them are concerns, especially how they impact land use and demand for travel, including impacts on transit and transit revenues. But the MPO is being asked about this topic because they look out 20 years, and the plans may be viewed as too backward-looking. MaaS is also impacting traditional transportation infrastructure plans and impacts from the recommendations (e.g., emissions) and producing a false sense of accuracy. The pace of change is very difficult, but we do have access to data that we never had before, too. One answer that could be done more often is scenario planning and applying a range of outcomes. Micromobil­ ity has been a big topic in part because it happened so quickly. The 21st century will focus on curbside management and competition for its space (freight, MaaS, parking, etc.). • Got lucky with scenario planning because it was enacted through a different program that otherwise could not have been afforded. Technology has given us access to data and informa­ tion resources that they couldn’t have dreamed of previously. • BMC: Should be looked at as an opportunity, not just a challenge since MPOs can provide resources and talents to their clients through forums (formal and informal). • Some MPOs in Florida are creating their own ITS master plans. • With COVID-19 and communications technology: when it goes well it is great and can facili­ tate stakeholder involvement across a big region or state; however, when it goes badly it can earn a lot of enemies. Other technologies are now built into new cars: auto braking, lane assist, blind-spot alerts, backing alerts, etc., which will have tremendous value for safety. Could evolve into smaller headway spacing and increases in roadway capacity. • BMC: Technology has had an impact on social justice and equity issues, increased training on racism for boards and staff. Social equity issues are now coming up much more often than before and are not as siloed. 

B-8   Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Strategies for Future Success A dark horse subject arose during the 2020 survey our project did with 129 MPOs and that was the topic of attracting, retaining, and training MPO staff. MPOs may have some interesting challenges in this regard; do you have insights into getting and keeping great staff? • MWCOG: At the agency, about 50 people are MPO staff, a number of whom have stayed there for 40 years; the average may be around 20 years, although turnover is about 10% per year for other staff. Not focusing on state or city boundaries can make it difficult to focus on a region and varying perspectives that require a long time to resolve issues. The MPO doesn’t always lead or have primary authority over specific plans or projects, which can be frustrating to work with many people and viewpoints. With every transportation bill reauthorization, there is more put on MPOs without more resources or authority; this creates uncertainty where some people do not thrive. • No one wants to start off being at an MPO but falls into it; state DOTs, city DOTs, transit agencies all go through this problem – there is no central or organized place to seek MPO talent. • HRTPO: There is a large disparity in how MPOs handle their business; staff sizes vary—there is not a correspondence between staffing and population. • HRTPO: Federal requirements keep being thrown at the TPO without more resources; roles evolve and change between staff. There are so many issues and things going on, making it dif­ ficult to maintain a relevant skill set. Some MPOs use a lot of consultants that allow them to use specialized staff, but there is no ability in-house to update the original well-done report. Give people ownership for the work that they have done; opportunities for advancement are somewhat limited by not getting raises if that is determined by the policy board. We hired one person on a student visa, and it worked well until the visa ran out, and we have been unable to renew the visa so far. Some people may be better at making hiring decisions than others. • MWCOG: Part of the COG so personnel things are exactly MPO things. Competitiveness studies are conducted independently to determine the validity of salaries and classifications. Turnover is not fast, and the organization is not large. Somewhat depends on what type of position is being advertised as to how many applications are received. • HRTPO: Generational shifts are important, too, since perspectives on what is important are not always common. • The lesson of the pandemic and telework: are the options going to be expanding and continuing to utilize remote working? Different agencies, of which the MPOs are a part, may take different stances and could be one more barrier if telework is not allowed. • Hard to compare salaries with MPO positions because its staffing needs and talents can be quite different from other types of agencies where the salary comparisons are being drawn. • MPOs can be attractive for consultants that want to limit travel and life-work balances. Benefits and other factors can be reasons that people leave. The foundation for MPO planning is the 20-year metropolitan transportation plan (MTP, RTP, or LRTP). Some of the changes we just discussed are very fast-evolving – weigh in on the relevance of the 20-year plan and planning process, and how it could be made more effective. • The 20-year plan adds value but building in some degree of recognition that there is a problem gaining certainty and forecasting transportation and transit conditions 20 years in the future is important. Right now, presenting a 20-year plan creates a false sense of accuracy for volumes of future travel and funding. More flexibility would be one desirable regulation change; identify climate change responsibilities of MPOs more specifically. • Surveys across the country show that MPOs agreed that the long-range plan is very much supported and keeps MPOs very relevant, especially since there is no specific project authority otherwise. A lot of pushback on lengthening plans to 10-year cycles (e.g., California). 

Regional Roundtable Summaries   B-9   Some things noticed about your MPOs include freight involvement and a focus on sea-level rise/climate change/resiliency (HRTPO); a robust Transportation System Management program (BMC); and a sophisticated congestion management dashboard and a focus on security issues (MWCOG). Please comment on any of these as you see fit. • BMC: TSM history was that we were hired to work on an ITS early deployment plan and once complete started to look at traffic incident management being led by the state for a region. We did modeling for the incident management committee after that. MWCOG had a traffic signal committee that was also adopted by BMC. Urban area security initiative prompted a committee started in the mid-2000s that addresses public works and is under the Homeland Security workgroup. Disaster planning has its own committee to address that issue. Would like to see an investment in data provided to the MPO so that they are not constantly working to find data to help in the planning process. • HRTPO: Sea-level rise is not a core issue for MPOs generally but is a major topic for HRTPO. Looking at flooding impacts as they relate to the environment and impact transportation infrastructure—these are not separate issues but should be considered together with a few people having experience in both areas. About half of MPO staff are engineers and half are planners, which is a rarity in MPO staffing. Key Findings Partnerships • Effective operation as an MPO requires developing relationships over time with board members. Establishing policy principles, while time-consuming and drawn out, helps set the stage for later project selection. • Over time, the remit of MPOs tends to grow into areas unrelated to their core competency of transportation planning and into a variety of related regional issues. This is partially a function of MPOs becoming the natural convener, coordinating agency, and default regional talk shop, and partially because many MPOs become the default home of data and analytical capacity. Outsourcing can happen from both member jurisdictions (cities and towns), but also to get help administering and implementing certain classes of projects for the DOT. Other examples of DOT/MPO collaboration include a Strategic Highway Safety Plan, and MPO/local district coordination on local plans, resulting in a DOT-funded position within the MPO. MPOs may also be asked by their members to more deeply explore certain topics or issues, including acting as a sort of general consultant, treating members as clients, and also by hosting committees on topics of interest. Committees cannot always do things but do seem important in being able to draw attention to things and to incubate things. Ad hoc/ex officio committees deal with issues of regional concern—not because they cross regional boundaries, but because the concerns are common to all MPO members across the region. • In this way, MPOs’ coordination efforts can cover not only transboundary issues but also issues common to many of their members. MPOs are uniquely capable of acting at a neutral table as a convener and can be seen as less threatening than the state doing so, as there is no implied command or control. • The convening function of MPOs plays into their capacity to bring previously unrelated orga­ nizations into contact and work on common projects, including partners such as HUD, a local port, the USDA, local disability community organizations, and local transit organiza­ tions. Doing so requires moving beyond one person doing the outreach. These partnerships help build both the credibility and capacity of MPOs. Not all partnerships are viable – state attempts to leverage MPO capacity can run contrary to MPO obligations. 

B-10   Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Strategies for Future Success • Money (in the form of grant funding or potential grant funding) often motivates new partner­ ships, and many MPO partners are created and sustained by non-formula funding. Funding drives a lot of innovation; MPOs understand how to apply for funding. • Partnerships also enable organizational learning, enabling learning through imitation. MPOs can copy COG innovations or innovations from state jurisdictions (DOT districts, planning organizations). Staffing • Many MPOs struggle to both attract and maintain staff. While long-term staff are not uncommon, sustained turnover is to be expected. • Finding staff for MPOs is difficult because of the combination of specialization and generalization – the job is not generic and requires a variety of skills, among them the capacity to wear many hats. Being an MPO planner requires staff to think in ways that transcend juris­ dictional boundaries as well as being comfortable dealing with multiple perspectives over a multi-year time span. Paraphrasing one panelist, ‘You’re going to find that somebody who has both the technical knowledge and a knowledge of how to take planning ideas and the passion to work with multiple, diverse viewpoints to make it happen.’ • MPOs staff have many origins—there is no consistent career path, and over time most MPO staff shift responsibilities once within an organization. The regional nature of MPOs means that there is little MPO to MPO staff movement. • With every reauthorization, there is more being put on MPO plates, resulting in increasing MPOs’ responsibilities with stagnant resources, trying to meet the demands of its board while still complying with a long list of federal obligations. • There is no relationship between the size of the region and the size of MPO staff; different places make different amounts of use of consultants. MPOs with larger staff seem to act more as consultants for the regions, becoming engaged in on-the-ground types of studies: corridor studies, citywide studies, and bike and pedestrian studies. • Maintaining a skill set in a specialty is a challenge, and many MPOs rely on consultants with specialized training, but doing so sabotages an MPO’s capacity to expand/improve on that work. • For small MPOs, the inability to promote staff from within is a challenge. Maintaining com­ petitive rates of pay can be difficult; comparative analysis of salaries can help, but the MPO planning skill set can be difficult to compare because of the ‘many hats’ issue. Regardless of geography, retaining staff is difficult, and hiring is an ongoing process—having staff that are good at hiring is valuable. The growing acceptance of remote work offers access to a larger labor pool; pandemic has demonstrated feasibility. Technology • Things are changing—shifts are not tectonic, but rather the world is changing more rapidly than anticipated. Changes that were on the horizon are suddenly here. The changes seem dramatic, but there is still a high level of uncertainty on whether the changed conditions are permanent or ongoing. The most alarming changes MPOs face are those for which new and innovative technology affects underlying assumptions about how transportation operates, making the future very difficult to predict. Yet because the MPO is the only agency with any experience dealing with long-range planning (and hence long-range forecasting) and because of the need for precision in estimates for long-range air quality compliance, the modeled forecasts imply a degree of accuracy that is spurious based on the numerous assumptions of future-year conditions. • Designed to deal with uncertainty and complexity, what the future might be like, scenario planning is suggested as a best practice to gain estimates of what ranges of outcomes are 

Regional Roundtable Summaries   B-11   possible/likely. Scenario planning also allows MPOs to explore different paradigms (i.e., apart from expanding mainline road capacity). Scenario planning is perhaps seen as a luxury and is used in the sense of regional visioning or multiple future land use and transportation planning alternatives rather than the range of values for outcomes under different numerical assumptions. • On the flip side, novel data makes novel analysis possible; INRIX and StreetLight offer mind- blowing accuracy about information that previously had to be assumed. • Video-conferencing (Zoom Teams, etc.) makes stakeholder engagement much easier, reduc­ ing the need for travel and making collaboration (more meetings) easier to achieve, really improving the connectivity of the core and periphery. Relevancy of the 20-Year Plan • To present a 20-year plan with the required degree of specificity, even if they are all assump­ tions, is a challenge, especially in light of all the uncertainties about technology and demand for travel and the revenue that accompanies it, making it difficult to predict revenues 20 years into the future. One best practice may simply be to treat a given 20-year plan as a potential future scenario. • Despite difficulties, the 20-year plan remains a foundational document in MPO practice because it is the only governing document (thanks to air quality compliance) that some MPOs produce. Summary of Regional Roundtable: Connecticut March 5, 2021 3:00 pm–4:45 pm EST Attendees Sam Gold, Executive Director, Lower Connecticut River Valley Council of Governments (LCRVCOG) Robert Haramut, Planning Director, LCRVCOG Robert Aloise, Director of Planning, Capitol Region Council of Governments (CRCOG) Jennifer Carrier, Transportation Planner, FHWA Connecticut Division Maribeth Wojenski, Bureau Chief, Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) Kathryn Faraci, CTDOT Lisa Rivers, Transit Manager, CTDOT Howard Glassman, Senior Planning Consultant, Gannett Fleming, Inc. Wade Carroll, Project Manager, Metro Analytics, PLLC Scott Lane, Principal Investigator, Metro Analytics, PLLC Part I: Best Practices, Challenges, Opportunities in 3C Planning Process Part I of the Regional Roundtable began with an overview of the MPOs’ 3C (continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive) planning process and focused on four discussion questions provided prior to the Regional Roundtable discussion. Overview of the 3C Planning Process • The MPO directors provided a brief overview of their 3C planning process. All MPOs in Connecticut are hosted by Councils of Government (COG). The Capitol Region Council 

B-12   Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Strategies for Future Success of Governments, Connecticut’s largest regional planning organization, is the MPO serving Hartford and 37 surrounding communities. The Lower Connecticut River Valley Council of Governments is the MPO serving 17 towns in Southcentral Connecticut. Regarding “Continuing,” the directors noted that long-term staff employment builds relationships and allows for the transfer of MPO work activities from one director to the next. Regarding “Comprehensive,” the fact that all Connecticut MPOs are hosted by a separate COG inher­ ently results in MPOs being involved and connected with land use, economic, agricultural, and other planning disciplines. • Uniquely, Connecticut MPOs are the host agency for Emergency Planning and Homeland Security Planning and are directly involved in the development of Natural Hazard Mitigation Plans. Regarding “Cooperative,” all MPOs in Connecticut share their Transportation Manage­ ment Areas (TMAs) so that all MPOs must work together. • The CTDOT owns and operates most of the bus companies in the state. • Monthly statewide MPO meetings help to address issues of concern and promote cooperative planning through the Connecticut Association of Councils of Governments, which is currently chaired by an MPO executive director. Question 1: How can MPOs and their agency partners be poised and equipped to better address current and future opportunities and challenges (pandemics, market disruptions, or other unexpected events)? • The CRCOG and LCRVCOG felt that they are situated in a way that allows them to be able to transition to address changing or unexpected events such as pandemics. Through virtual meetings and a strong state DOT, they are positioned to address issues as they arise. • The CTDOT took the lead in National Performance Management Measures and developed the performance targets that are to be used by the state and MPOs. The MPOs’ relationship with COGs enables them to address emerging issues through the COG board or through other governmental agencies that are involved in nontraditional transportation issues. This allows Connecticut MPOs to “break down the silos” that often separate MPOs from other non-transportation-related organizations. • It was also noted that MPOs do not all have the same staff capabilities and resources. The MPOs that are well staffed and funded have a greater potential to accept change and the ability to transition to new and emerging issues. For example, if local officials serving on an MPO board are unwilling to commit a full 10% funding match toward federal transportation planning (PL) funds it affects the efficacy of that MPO to implement the 3C planning process. The CTDOT contributes up to a 10% match of the PL funding, but local MPO officials must also step up and provide the other 10% match with non-federal funds. MPO funding and efficacy are also impacted by the willingness of a COG to impose a per capita fee upon each of its local members. The LCRVCOG, for example, imposes a $1.20 per capita fee upon each of its member governments. • The CTDOT serves as a non-voting member of the MPOs, which provides the agency added flexibility in how they participate in the MPO planning process to address new and emerging MPO issues. Question 2: What strategies can be used to improve the efficacy of MPOs and their agency partners in implementing the 3C planning process? • Several strategies were identified by the participants during the roundtable discussion. Currently, the CTDOT and MPOs are moving forward with the sharing of websites, sharing information regarding the State Work Program and the Transportation Improvement Pro­ grams, and getting joint access to data. A forum partnership exists between Connecticut MPOs and MPOs surrounding New York City. This strategy is being used to address freight planning throughout a megaregion that encompasses multiple states and numerous MPOs. 

Regional Roundtable Summaries   B-13   • Funding strategies were also discussed by Regional Roundtable attendees. It was noted that Connecticut MPOs typically allocate urbanized-area federal funds to smaller state assets, while CTDOT-controlled federal funds are allocated to larger state assets such as National Highway System (NHS) projects. State bond funds are allocated by MPOs to local transporta­ tion projects that generally are not on the NHS or the state highway system. • Informal strategies, such as informal meetings between MPO staff and agency staff are com­ monly used between MPOs and the CTDOT. An agreement between MPOs and their agency partners is an example of a formal strategy to connect MPOs and their agency partners. It was noted that some agreements need to be updated, which was a finding during the MPO certi­ fication reviews. The ability to drive just a few hours between the central office of the CTDOT and each MPO is conducive to having informal meetings. Question 3: Should the roles, responsibilities, and resources of MPOs change in relation to their state, regional, and local transportation partners? • The attendees agreed on the roles and responsibilities of MPOs, CTDOT, transit agencies, and their federal partners are generally working well and are not in need of major changes. • One issue of concern to the MPOs is the use of indirect rates that MPOs must use to receive federal planning funds. The indirect rates that are required by FHWA, FTA, or both are not consistent with those used by other federal agencies, making it difficult to secure other federal funds. Applying state-established indirect rates may be a better way to allow MPOs to work more efficiently with other federal agencies. Specifically, 2 CFR 200.331(a)(4) requires that every subaward of federal funds from the pass-through entity (i.e., state DOT) to the sub- recipient must include, among other elements, an indirect cost rate. Question 4: What are some noteworthy best practices in the 3C planning process that could be replicated (or not) by other MPOs? • All MPOs in Connecticut are on the same update/adoption schedule for the development of Long-Range Transportation Plans (LRTPs), Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs), Unified Planning Work Programs (UPWPs), and the State Transportation Improvement Pro­ gram (STIP). • CTDOT has developed an MPO program handbook that is used by the CTDOT and the MPOs. • The CTDOT Transit Office is reviewing proposed transit study projects early in the project development process to be sure that the study objectives and costs associated with the study align with department policies and practices. • All MPOs in Connecticut participate in Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning as well as Home­ land Security Planning. • CTDOT is actively engaged in reviewing all aspects of proposed corridor studies to be sure that corridor study funds are being applied to those studies that clearly demonstrate a purpose and need. • A mid-term informal MPO certification review takes place with each MPO following their official MPO certification review. This mid-term informal review includes the participation of the MPO, CTDOT, and the FHWA Division Office. Part II of the Regional Roundtable Discussion Pertained to Identifying and Addressing Major Policy Topics Confronting MPOs and Their Agency Partners In advance of this Regional Roundtable, the MPOs and their agency partners submitted an assortment of major topics for discussion. • There is just not enough funding to address the need, and state DOTs are slowly but surely determining more and more how the existing funding is spent. Our MPO members (local 

B-14   Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Strategies for Future Success governments, etc.) realize this, and they are becoming less and less willing to participate in the MPO process. • The roundtable attendees recognized the importance of keeping the MPO process relevant for both the public and each MPO member. MPO connectivity to COGs is important because it connects transportation planning to other planning disciplines that are often the responsi­ bility of COGs. MPO staff lunches with recently appointed MPO board members provide an opportunity to explain the MPO process and help new members to be successful. • The shortage of MPO funds requires MPOs to seek creative solutions, such as per capita fees from municipal government MPO members. The participants also noted that the increasingly growing costs of large transportation projects present a challenge to each MPO. New trans­ portation dollars are needed to fix 1960s infrastructure. • Federal requirements and emerging issues—both continue to increase, making it more and more difficult for MPOs to function effectively. MPOs feel they are being spread too thin. • The roundtable attendees noted that MPOs need increased access to data sources so that they can manage and use the data in their MPO area. Having states buy data sets and making them available to MPOs would greatly assist MPOs in their development of transportation plans and programs. The University of Connecticut’s UCONN Crash Data Repository is an example of a valuable data set that MPOs can access. Summary of Key Findings The MPO directors provided a brief overview of their 3C planning process. All MPOs in Connecticut are hosted by Councils of Government (COG). The Capitol Region Council of Governments, Connecticut’s largest regional planning organization, is the MPO serving Hartford and 37 surrounding communities. The Lower Connecticut River Valley Council of Govern­ ments is the MPO serving 17 towns in Southcentral Connecticut. Regarding “Continuing,” the directors noted that long-term staff employment builds relationships and allows for the transfer of MPO work activities from one director to the next. Regarding “Comprehensive” the fact that all Connecticut MPOs are hosted by a separate COG inherently results in MPOs being involved and connected with land use, economic, agricultural, and other planning disciplines. Uniquely, Connecticut MPOs are the host agency for Emergency Planning and Homeland Security Planning and directly are involved in the development of Natural Hazard Mitigation Plans. Regarding “Cooperative” all MPOs in Connecticut share their Transportation Manage­ ment Areas (TMAs) so that all MPOs must work together. The CTDOT owns and operates most of the bus companies in the state. Monthly statewide MPO meetings help to address issues of concern and promote cooperative planning through the Connecticut Association of Councils of Governments, which is currently chaired by an MPO executive director. The Connecticut area Regional Roundtable discussion was attended by representatives from MPOs, the CTDOT, and federal agencies. It resulted in the following key findings. • All MPOs in the state of Connecticut are hosted by a council of government. This provides MPOs with the ability to be actively involved in transportation issues as well as other issues that relate to transportation but are not considered core MPO planning requirements. • Connecticut MPOs are the host agency for Emergency Planning and Homeland Security Planning and are directly involved in the development of Natural Hazard Mitigation Plans and Homeland Security Plans. • Councils of Government and their MPOs have established the Connecticut Association of Councils of Governments, which provides MPOs and their agency partners a forum to discuss and advance the 3C planning process. • COGs and MPOs utilize federal transportation funds as well as per capita member fees to address the costs associated with running an MPO and fulfilling the many federal and state planning requirements. 

Regional Roundtable Summaries   B-15   • Sharing data assets, websites, and information related to the development of Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) and the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is being advanced in Connecticut to reduce costs and enhance the 3C transportation planning process. • Indirect rates that MPOs use to receive FHWA and FTA funds are not always recognized by other federal agencies. Applying state-approved indirect rates may be a more effective approach for MPOs seeking funds from other federal agencies. • All MPOs and the CTDOT are on the same update/adoption schedule for the development of MPO Long-Range Transportation Plans (LRTPs), Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs), Unified Planning Work Programs (UPWPs), and the State Transportation Improve­ ment Program (STIP). • A mid-term informal MPO certification review takes place with each MPO following their official MPO certification review. This mid-term informal review includes the participation of the MPO, CTDOT, and the FHWA Division Office. • The roles and responsibilities between MPOs and their agency partners are generally working well and are not in need of major changes. Summary of Regional Roundtable: New York State March 12, 2021 3:00 pm–4:45 pm EST Attendees Michael Franchini, Executive Director, Capital District Transportation Committee Hal Morse, Executive Director, Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council Lynn Weiskopf, Director, Office of Policy, Planning & Performance, New York State Depart­ ment of Transportation (NYSDOT) David Rettig, Director, Office of Regional Planning & Program Coordination, NYSDOT Maria Chau, Senior Community Planner, FHWA New York State Division Donald Burns, Director of Planning & Program Development, Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Region II Carm Basile, CEO, Capital District Transportation Authority Howard Glassman, Senior Planning Consultant, Gannett Fleming, Inc. Wade Carroll, Project Manager, Metro Analytics, PLLC Scott Lane, Principal Investigator, Metro Analytics, PLLC Part I: Best Practices, Challenges, Opportunities in 3C Planning Process Part I of the Regional Roundtable began with an overview of each MPO’s (continuing, cooper­ ative, and comprehensive) planning process and focused on four discussion questions provided prior to the Regional Roundtable discussion. Overview of the 3C Planning Process • The MPO directors provided a brief overview of their 3C planning process. The Capital Dis­ trict Transportation Committee is the designated MPO for the Albany-Schenectady-Troy and Sarasota Springs metropolitan area. The Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council is the MPO for Erie and Niagara Counties. The directors noted the diversity of the urban and rural geographic areas that are within their MPO boundaries and the importance of being able to address urban and rural issues as well as varying urban size and complexities. 

B-16   Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Strategies for Future Success • Regional strategic partnerships are an important element of the cooperative planning process. They have long-established working relationships and coordination efforts with the various modes of transportation, including close cooperation with Transportation Management Centers for live traffic management and dynamic simulation. The importance of expediting the delivery of transportation projects resulted in a project delivery workshop that was jointly hosted by the Capital District Transportation Committee and the Capital District Transportation Authority. • The MPO directors emphasized that active cooperation with MPO members (cities, transit agen­ cies, etc.) is essential to the success of the 3C planning process. This means working directly with MPO members to understand their community’s transportation needs and project priorities. It then becomes the responsibility of an MPO to develop a Transportation Improvement Pro­ gram that balances those needs without bias toward highway, transit, or another mode of trans­ portation. The directors also discussed the “regional strategic partnerships” they have initiated with both traditional and nontraditional transportation partners. Both MPOs that participated in the roundtable discussion are hosted by a regional transportation authority. Question 1: How can MPOs and their agency partners be poised and equipped to better address current and future opportunities and challenges (pandemics, market disruptions, or other unexpected events)? • MPOs and their agency partners expressed the importance of making MPOs “mobility man­ agers” that have the capacity to provide a deep menu of transportation choices, including fixed-route service, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), regional bikesharing, and other modal choices. As noted by an attendee, “Gone are days when transit agencies can simply provide 40 ft buses to satisfy the demand for public transportation.” • To be poised and equipped to address the future, the MPOs and their agency partners explained the importance of incorporating Transportation System Management & Opera­ tions (TSM&O) into the 3C planning process. The NYSDOT provides a starting point for this initiative by connecting their work on TSM&O, active transportation, and demand manage­ ment programs and by creating a pathway for MPOs to join them in this effort. • A common theme heard during the roundtable discussion was the need to cultivate rela­ tionships with both traditional as well as nontraditional partners in order to be poised for the future. This is necessary to address the expanding list of issues that confront MPOs and their elected officials including climate change and alternative energies. For example, the Capital Region Transportation Committee is reaching out to school districts and their bicycle clubs to better understand their issues and needs. Likewise, they are also exploring new aca­ demic research partnerships and have entered into contracts with the University of Albany for data collection and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) for freight-related activities. The Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council is involved in risk and market share analysis and has contracted a smart mobility advisor to ensure they are contemporary in their thinking and planning practices. Question 2: What strategies can be used to improve the efficacy of MPOs and their agency partners in implementing the 3C planning process? • The pandemic has challenged MPOs to find ways to achieve a meeting quorum. They have found that virtual meetings provide a communication strategy useful during unexpected events because they can be set up quickly and are able to comply with state and local meeting requirements. • The New York State Association of MPOs (NYSAMPO) provides a meeting forum for MPOs to interact and learn from other MPOs. It is mutually beneficial for the MPO members and the participating state and federal agencies. The NYSAMPO maintains nine working groups to address a variety of issues such as equity and safety. The association provides a means for 

Regional Roundtable Summaries   B-17   FTA to communicate effectively with New York’s MPOs when they are unable to attend in person. Following each NYSAMPO meeting, FTA is given questions asked by the members, and they are able to respond to those questions in a timely and cost-effective way. • The decentralized structure of the NYSDOT consists of 11 regional offices that are supported by a central office headquarters. The regional offices provide direct contact to the MPOs, which is supported by liaisons from the Statewide NYSDOT office. The NYSDOT region serves as a voting member on each MPO and has assisted the MPOs by sharing planning data for bicycles and other transportation modes. • The attendees stressed the importance of informal working relationships between the MPOs and their agency partners. Informal discussions between staff early on during the develop­ ment of the MPO Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the department’s State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) improve the planning process and timeliness of project delivery. It was also noted that with fewer staff members now working for MPOs and their agency partners, more than ever there is a need to be efficient, stay focused on the issues, and get things done. • Similarly, there is a need for the agencies to be flexible and offer creative solutions that can move projects forward through the project development process. This includes keeping MPOs fully apprised of the status of all pending projects. Many projects take years to advance through the phases of project development. Projects will be managed by new project managers and subject to changing agency guidelines and objectives. The attendees agreed that each contributor in the 3C process, including MPO board members, the public, and local project sponsors, needs to understand the project development process. Question 3: Should the roles, responsibilities, and resources of MPOs change in relation to their state, regional, and local transportation partners? • In general, the attendees did not feel there was a need for significant changes to the 3C plan­ ning process. The MPOs are proud of the process they created for their metropolitan areas and do not see a need for a major shift in the roles and responsibilities of the MPOs or their agency partners. When it came to the question of who should be the recipient of transporta­ tion project funds, the attendees felt the real issue is that there simply are not enough trans­ portation dollars to address the MPOs’ unfunded needs. • The role of MPOs has significantly grown over the years and they are now involved in many issues at a much deeper level than ever before. For example, safety planning is a data-driven activity that requires MPOs to have specific knowledge and skills to effectively interact with other members of the safety community. It means that MPO staffs need to be equipped with new expertise, communication, and organizational skills to effectively participate in the 3C planning process. • The delivery of transportation projects is often considered a state or local agency responsibility that is outside the purview of MPOs. The Regional Roundtable attendees believe that reality is changing as transit operators and MPOs are now using economic stimulus funds that are expected to be deployed quickly through the planning and project development process. For many MPOs, this may be a new role in helping to shorten the timeline between transportation planning, programming, and production. The move from plan to action requires cooperation among the MPOs and agency partners in the 3C planning process. Question 4: What are some noteworthy best practices in the 3C planning process that could be replicated (or not) by other MPOs? • Advisory committees provide an important organizational level within the MPO struc­ ture. Advisory committees for equity, freight, operations, and safety focus on important policy and planning issues that expand the skills and capabilities of MPOs. The Capital Region 

B-18   Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Strategies for Future Success Transportation Committee and the Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council have advisory committees that work with many nontraditional transportation partners that previously had a less pronounced role in working with MPOs. • NYSAMPO provides a forum for discussion between MPOs and their agency partners that should be replicated throughout the nation. It provides for the sharing of information and a platform to learn the activities of other organizations, including FHWA and FTA. The asso­ ciation has a long history of conducting applied research studies to the benefit of the MPOs and the planning profession. • NYSDOT purchased and shared with MPOs transportation data through Transearch that are used to develop MPO plans and programs. Purchase and sharing of data by the NYSDOT for MPOs are needed to offset the increasing costs associated with operating an MPO. Having access to free or low-cost data is important to offset the increasing costs of procured data asso­ ciated to satisfy required products such as performance measures reporting requirements and the development of congestion management processes. • In the Capital District Transportation Committee, bicycle/pedestrian master plans and corridor studies submitted by villages, towns, and other local governments are eligible for “Linkage Studies,” where the MPO may fund up to 75% of the project cost. • The Capital Region Transportation Authority has regional set-aside funds for Bus Rapid Transit that require a local match commitment. This annual local funding match reaffirms the project sponsors’ commitment to the region. • NYSDOT and the MPOs are working together on Clean Cities Programs and state policy initiatives on climate change and resiliency. There is also a joint funding arrangement on big data and a sharing of expertise between the NYSDOT and the MPOs. Part II of the Regional Roundtable Discussion Pertained to Identifying and Addressing Major Policy Issues Confronting MPOs and Their Agency Partners In advance of this Regional Roundtable, the MPOs and their agency partners submitted an assortment of major topics for discussion. The chosen topics and highlights of the discussion are summarized below. • Getting Projects Delivered—With plans and finance in place, project implementation can be a challenge given individual municipality/agency capacity. Strengthening the implementation process to increase speed and quality will result in significant benefits. • Capital Region Transportation Committee meetings include a project schedule status report that is educational, informative, and keeps the project sponsors aware of their project’s status. In addition, one of the criteria for the selection of TIP projects is “has the project sponsor delivered previous projects on time?” Other roundtable members said they may be reluctant to use that criterion because a sponsor with a weaker delivery track record may still have the best project. The MPOs also work with transportation contractor associations to schedule projects before the construction season begins and to align projects so that the contractors are not over­ committed. Seasonal weather conditions are also considered in the alignment of projects. • NYDOT provides training to local sponsors on project implementation. Municipalities were required to take training sessions on project implementation before submitting a project for funding. The training session was jointly presented by NYSDOT and FHWA, and an addi­ tional training session was required if the local sponsor was awarded a grant. What does the planner of the future look like? New skills will be needed as we move to the coming decades. • The planner of the future will be someone who can work with and manage data because things are changing faster than ever. Technology skill sets will continue to be important as planning 

Regional Roundtable Summaries   B-19   has become more of a science than an art. Planners will need to be able to harness social media data and be able to differentiate reliable data from the unreliable data being broadcasted. • MPOs will recognize that they need planners with different skill sets, including collaboration and communication as well as expertise in land use, sustainability, and data analysis that complement one another to create an effective and balanced MPO team. Summary of Key Findings The MPO directors provided a brief overview of their 3C planning process. The Capital District Transportation Committee is the designated MPO for the Albany-Schenectady-Troy and Sarasota Springs metropolitan area. The Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council is the MPO for Erie and Niagara Counties. The directors noted the diversity of the urban and rural geographic areas that are within their MPO boundaries and the importance of being able to address urban and rural issues as well as varying urban size and complexities. Regional strategic partnerships are an important element of the cooperative planning process. They have long-established working relationships and coordination efforts with the various modes of transportation, including close cooperation with transportation management centers for live traffic management and dynamic simulation. The importance of expediting the delivery of transportation projects resulted in a project delivery workshop that was jointly hosted by the Capital District Transportation Committee and the Capital District Transportation Authority. The MPO directors emphasized that “active cooperation” with MPO members (e.g., cities, transit agencies, etc.) is essential to the success of the 3C planning process. This means working directly with MPO members to understand their community’s transportation needs and project priorities. It then becomes the responsibility of an MPO to develop a Transportation Improve­ ment Program that balances those needs without bias toward highway, transit, or another mode of transportation. The directors also discussed the “regional strategic partnerships” they have initiated with both traditional and nontraditional transportation partners. Both MPOs that par­ ticipated in the roundtable discussion are hosted by a regional transportation authority. The New York State area Regional Roundtable discussion was attended by representatives from MPOs, NYSDOT, a transit authority, and federal agencies. It resulted in the following key findings. • Advisory committees provide an important organizational level within the MPO structure. Advisory committees for equity, freight, operations, and safety focus on important policy and planning issues, which expands the skills and capabilities of MPOs. The Greater Buffalo- Niagara Regional Transportation Council and the Capital Region Transportation Committee use advisory committees that work with many nontraditional transportation partners that previously had a less pronounced role in working with MPOs. • The New York State Association of MPOs (NYSAMPO) provides a forum for discussion between MPOs and their agency partners that should be replicated throughout the nation. It provides for the sharing of information and a platform to learn the activities of other organi­ zations, including FHWA and FTA. The association has a long history of conducting applied research studies to the benefit of the MPOs and the planning profession. • NYSDOT purchased and shared with MPOs transportation data through Transearch that are used to develop MPO plans and programs. The purchase and sharing of data by the NYSDOT for MPOs are needed to offset the increasing costs associated with operating an MPO. Having access to free or low-cost data is important to offset the increasing costs of procured data asso­ ciated to satisfy required products such as performance measures reporting requirements and the development of congestion management processes. • Bicycle/pedestrian master plans and corridor studies submitted to the Capital District Trans­ portation Committee by villages, towns, and other local governments are eligible for “Linkage Studies” where the MPO may fund up to 75% of the project cost. 

B-20   Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Strategies for Future Success • The Capital Region Transportation Authority has regional set-aside funds for Bus Rapid Transit that require a local match commitment. This annual local funding match reaffirms the project sponsors’ commitment to the region. • The Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council is involved in risk and market share analysis and has contracted a Smart Mobility Advisor to ensure they are contemporary in their thinking and planning practices. • NYSDOT and the MPOs are working together on Clean Cities Programs and state policy initiatives on climate change and resiliency. There is also a joint funding arrangement on big data and a sharing of expertise between the NYSDOT and the MPOs. • In general, the attendees did not feel there was a need for significant changes to the roles and responsibilities of MPOs, states, and federal agencies in the 3C planning process. The role of MPOs has significantly grown over the years as they are now involved in many more issues and at a much deeper level. The 3C planning process provides the MPOs the flexibility they need to engage in a variety of issues that varies from MPO to MPO. • Project delivery workshops are being used by the NYSDOT, transit agencies, and MPOs to inform project sponsors and MPO members of the status of some ongoing projects. NYSDOT has provided training for project sponsors as a condition to receiving project grants. Some MPOs use project selection criteria that include a sponsor’s track record in delivering projects on time as a condition to be included in MPO Transportation Improvement Programs. • The planner of the future will be someone who can work with and manage data because things are changing faster than ever. Technology skill sets will continue to be important as planning has become more of a science than an art. Planners will need to be able to harness social media data and be able to differentiate reliable data from the unreliable data that is being broadcast. MPOs will recognize that they need planners with different skill sets, including collaboration, communication, and expertise in land use, sustainability, and data analysis that complement one another to create an effective and balanced MPO team. Summary of Regional Roundtable: Florida March 19, 2021 3:00 pm–4:45 pm EST Attendees Whit Blanton, Executive Director, Forward Pinellas Gary Huttmann, Executive Director, MetroPlan Orlando Alison Stettner, Director, Office of Policy Planning, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Karen Brunelle, Director, Office of Project Development, FHWA Florida Division Cathy Kendall, Planning Team Leader, FHWA Florida Division Keith Melton, Director, Office of Planning & Program Management, FTA Region IV John Crocker, Community Planner, FTA Region IV Julia Walker, Environmental Protection Specialist, FTA Region IV Cassandra Borchers, Chief Development Officer, Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority Howard Glassman, Senior Planning Consultant, Gannett Fleming, Inc. Wade Carroll, Project Manager, Metro Analytics, PLLC Scott Lane, Principal Investigator, Metro Analytics, PLLC The metropolitan planning organization (MPO) attendees were selected based upon recom­ mendations received from the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations and the National Association of Regional Councils. Agency partner attendees were selected based on recommendations received from the MPOs within the state. 

Regional Roundtable Summaries   B-21   Part I: Best Practices, Challenges, Opportunities in the 3C Planning Process Part I of the Regional Roundtable began with an overview of each MPO’s 3C (continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive) planning process and focused on four discussion questions provided prior to the Regional Roundtable discussion. Overview of the 3C Planning Process The metropolitan planning organization (MPO) directors provided a brief overview of their 3C planning process. • MetroPlan Orlando is the MPO for Orange, Osceola, and Seminole counties in Central Florida. MetroPlan Orlando noted their organization has a long institutional life that is strengthened by having well-established working relationships with counties, municipalities, and transportation organizations that are members of MetroPlan Orlando and serve on their board. • However, MPOs must also work across metropolitan areas and jurisdictional boundaries to engage in regional planning activities. The Interstate 4 Corridor study group represents an alignment of large and continuous metropolitan areas that form a megaregion, where mul­ tiple MPOs in concert with the FDOT are creating a regional Transportation System Manage­ ment & Operations (TSM&O) program. • MetroPlan Orlando is engaging nontraditional partners, such as public health organizations, in their long-range planning in order to work with them in deciding how to include health considerations in the planning and programming of transportation dollars. Likewise, they are bringing utility companies into the planning process to address future electric vehicle charg­ ing station locations that will be needed to support the continued growth of alternative fuels and modes of transportation. • Forward Pinellas is a single-county MPO in the Tampa Bay Area that has nine advisory com­ mittees and is governed by a 13-member board of elected officials. Forward Pinellas noted that many of the issues that MPOs face are “continuous,” and therefore, the partnerships they establish need to be long-lasting. The executive director noted that “MPO long-range plan­ ning is where everything comes together.” • Forward Pinellas is unique because it is a land use and Transportation Planning Organization. Land-use decisions come first and then the transportation projects are right-sized accordingly to support the land-use decisions. • Forward Pinellas concentrates on the different community needs and seeks public input through focus groups, opportunity gatherings, and innovative public involvement tech­ niques. As a built-out metropolitan area, the public involvement comments clearly show that people want transit, bicycle paths, and trails instead of more roads. Question 1: How can MPOs and their agency partners be poised and equipped to better address current and future opportunities and challenges (pandemics, market disruptions, or other unexpected events)? • Many MPOs and their agency partners were not prepared to address the COVID-19 pandemic and the challenges it created. While the 3C planning process was generally disrupted, some MPOs were more successful than others in handling this unexpected event. • As observed by the FHWA, the MPOs who were the most successful had in place a Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) for emergencies, an ongoing communication network between the MPO and its agency partners, and prior experience in testing out new planning tools and technologies. A COOP addresses actions and procedures an organization will use during an emergency event. Some MPOs had a COOP that allowed them to have alternate public 

B-22   Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Strategies for Future Success involvement methods during the emergency without having to amend their public involve­ ment plan to use them. • Regarding the public’s involvement in transportation planning activities, the pandemic created many interesting results. Forward Pinellas and MetroPlan Orlando both experienced a sig­ nificant increase in the number of people who participated in MPO planning activities using virtual rather than in-person attendance. At some events, attendance increased from 50 to 60 people to 500 to 1,000 people using virtual meeting communication tools. Hybrid meetings were introduced consisting of some meeting attendees having a physical presence (a requirement under Florida law to take formal action), while other attendees participated only virtually. The Regional Roundtable attendees concurred that hybrid meetings are neces­ sary, but they warrant additional study because they continue to be difficult to arrange and conduct. • The state and federal agencies are trying to assimilate the new meeting technologies into the traditional planning and decision-making process. The FDOT has acknowledged that hybrid meetings are the new normal and have established guidelines the agency must follow. Question 2: What strategies can be used to improve the efficacy of MPOs and their agency partners in implementing the 3C planning process? • Financial incentives are being used by the MPOs with local governments to advance Com­ plete Streets and bicycle and pedestrian programs. Instead of simply developing and pro­ moting a new policy, Forward Pinellas and MetroPlan Orlando have created programs that reward local governments who participate. Forward Pinellas has dedicated $100,000 in fed­ eral planning (PL) funds for local linkages projects that support the connection between land use and transportation. Likewise, MetroPlan Orlando has allocated a portion of its federal urban funds to local government Complete Streets, bicycle, and trail projects. • To improve the efficacy of the MPO 3C planning process it needs to be clear and easy to understand by all participants. The FDOT noted how important it is for the department to fully understand the MPO project priority lists. The top project priorities need to be clearly identified by the MPOs, which is not always the case when multiple project priority lists are submitted by an MPO. The interpretation and administration of state policies and regulations should be clearly understood by all participants in the planning process. • Flexibility in the interpretation and implementation of planning rules could also lead to a more efficient planning and project delivery process. The Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority noted that efficiencies in the delivery of projects could be improved by allowing pre-award authority to agencies who seek to advance projects that are in the outer years of the depart­ ment’s work program. • The FTA noted the difficulty they have in attending and participating directly with Florida’s 27 MPOs due in part to the FTA’s centralized office location in Atlanta, Georgia. While the FTA has over the years attended some statewide MPO meetings, they need to have direct discussions with MPOs that are engaged in large-scale transit projects. To overcome their shortage in travel funds, the FTA requires local staff to attend major project meetings at FTA before a preferred option is chosen. Question 3: Should the roles, responsibilities, and resources of MPOs change in relation to their state, regional, and local transportation partners? • Since the early passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act in 1991, there has been little change to the population benchmarks used to establish MPOs and Trans­ portation Management Areas (TMAs). While MPO responsibilities vary between TMA and non-TMA areas, few provisions recognize the “capacity” of an MPO to assume new respon­ sibilities, including some that are currently granted to state DOTs and other transportation entities. 

Regional Roundtable Summaries   B-23   • It was also noted that relationship building is key to the sharing of roles and responsibilities. The attendees felt that the process is working if the MPOs and their agency partners can con­ tinue to work together. An overhaul of the process is unnecessary as the MPOs are just getting to understand the newly enacted requirements for performance measures and management systems. Question 4: What are some noteworthy best practices in the 3C planning process that could be replicated (or not) by other MPOs? • A shared planning process is being used to promote a common vision and mission between organizations within an MPO area. Forward Pinellas shares a common vision with the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority, and together, they have branded their long-range transportation plans as Advantage Pinellas. Investment corridors were identified by the county to direct funding decisions for land use, transportation, and housing. • Interstate 4 Corridor Regional Transportation System Management & Operations (TSM&O) program includes five MPOs and multiple FDOT districts. • Regional transportation planning and coordination throughout the state where multiple MPOs came together and established separate Regional Transportation Planning Organiza­ tions, including the Central Florida MPO Alliance and the West Central Florida MPO Chairs Coordinating Committee in the greater Tampa Bay Area. • FDOT developed an MPO Program Management Handbook that is used by the department’s central office, district offices, and MPOs to implement the various state and federal require­ ments that apply to MPOs. The FDOT is embarking on a template for MPO Unified Planning Work Programs to streamline the planning process. • Florida MPO Advisory Council (MPOAC) was created by state law and serves as a forum for collective decision-making by Florida’s 27 MPOs. The MPOAC brings MPOs, FDOT, and federal agencies together every quarter to address state and federal transportation issues that affect MPOs. • The role of nontraditional transportation partners is growing in the MPO 3C planning process and includes health planning professionals, utility companies, and the business community. • Continuity of Operations Plans (COOP) enabled MPOs during the COVID-19 pandemic to have alternate public involvement methods in place during the emergency without having to amend their public involvement plan to use them. • Forward Pinellas has dedicated $100,000 in federal planning funds for local linkages proj­ ects that support the connection between land use and transportation. Likewise, MetroPlan Orlando has allocated a portion of its federal urban funds to local government Complete Streets, bicycle, and trail projects. Part II of the Regional Roundtable Discussion Pertained to Identifying and Addressing Major Policy Topics Confronting MPOs and Their Agency Partners In advance of this Regional Roundtable, the MPOs and their agency partners submitted an assortment of major topics for discussion. The topics chosen and highlights of the discussion are summarized below. • Proactive planning approaches for changing transportation technologies. MPOs need to anticipate and address the growth of new technologies in planning processes. Micromobility, streetscapes, scooters, and alternatively fueled vehicles will be a major future consideration for MPOs and their partner agencies. The challenge that MPOs face will be attempting to meet the multimodal needs established in MPOs’ long-range transportation plans while expe­ riencing declining transportation revenues, due in part, to many of these new technologies. 

B-24   Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Strategies for Future Success • How will MPOs address the need for transportation data in the future? Data needs are an important issue that MPOs throughout the country now face. MPOs play an important role in performance measure reporting and congestion management plans. There is a clear need for readily available and affordable data to support those MPO planning requirements. The types of data are also changing as MPOs move away from level of service and trip count data and begin to move toward data that reflects travel behavior. The need for data resources and a data governance structure is an equally important issue. Summary of Key Findings MetroPlan Orlando is the MPO for Orange, Osceola, and Seminole counties in Central Florida. MetroPlan Orlando noted their organization has a long institutional life that is strengthened by having well-established working relationships with counties, municipalities, and transportation organizations that are members of MetroPlan Orlando and serve on their board. However, MPOs must also work across metropolitan areas and jurisdictional boundaries to engage in regional planning activities. The Interstate 4 Corridor study group represents an alignment of large and continuous metropolitan areas that form a megaregion where multiple MPOs in concert with the FDOT are creating a regional Transportation System Management & Operations (TSM&O) program. MetroPlan Orlando is engaging nontraditional partners such as public health organiza­ tions in their long-range planning in order to work with them in deciding how to include health considerations in the planning and programming of transportation dollars. Likewise, they are bringing utility companies into the planning process to address future electric vehicle charging station locations that will be needed to support the continued growth of alternative fuels and modes of transportation. Forward Pinellas is a single-county MPO in the Tampa Bay Area that has nine advisory com­ mittees and is governed by a 13-member board of elected officials. Forward Pinellas noted that many of the issues that MPOs face are continuous, and therefore, the partnerships they establish need to be long-lasting. The Executive Director noted that “MPO long-range planning is where everything comes together.” Forward Pinellas is unique because it is a land use and transporta­ tion planning organization. Land-use decisions come first and then the transportation projects are right-sized accordingly to support the land-use decisions. Forward Pinellas concentrates on the different community needs and seeks public input through focus groups, opportunity gatherings, and innovative public involvement techniques. As a built-out metropolitan area, the public involvement comments clearly show that people want transit, bicycle paths, and trails instead of more roads. The Florida area Regional Roundtable discussion was attended by representatives from MPOs, FDOT, federal agencies, and a transit agency. It resulted in the following key findings. • A shared planning process is being used to promote a common vision and mission between organizations within an MPO area. Forward Pinellas shares a common vision with the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority and together they have branded their long-range transportation plans as Advantage Pinellas. Investment corridors were identified by the county to direct fund­ ing decisions for land use, transportation, and housing. • Interstate 4 Corridor Regional Transportation System Management & Operations (TSM&O) program includes five MPOs and multiple FDOT districts. • Regional transportation planning and coordination throughout the state where multiple MPOs came together and established separate Regional Transportation Planning Organiza­ tions including the Central Florida MPO Alliance and the West Central Florida MPO Chairs Coordinating Committee in the greater Tampa Bay Area. • FDOT developed an MPO Program Management Handbook that is used by the department’s central office, district offices, and MPOs to implement the various state and federal requirements 

Regional Roundtable Summaries   B-25   that apply to MPOs. The department is embarking on the development of a template for MPO Unified Planning Work Programs to streamline the planning process. • The Florida MPO Advisory Council (MPOAC) was created by state law and serves as a forum for collective decision-making by Florida’s 27 MPOs. The MPOAC brings MPOs, FDOT, and federal agencies together every quarter to address state and federal transportation issues that affect MPOs. • MetroPlan Orlando has expanded the role of nontraditional transportation partners in the MPO 3C planning process to include health planning professionals, utility companies, and the business community. • Continuity of Operations Plans (COOP) enabled MPOs during the COVID-19 pandemic to have alternate public involvement methods in place during the emergency without having to amend their Public Involvement Plan to use them. • Forward Pinellas has dedicated $100,000 in federal planning funds for local linkages proj­ ects that support the connection between land use and transportation. Likewise, MetroPlan Orlando has allocated a portion of its federal urban funds to local government Complete Streets, bicycle, and trail projects. • Since the early passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act in 1991, there has been little change to the population benchmarks used to establish MPOs and Trans­ portation Management Areas (TMAs). While MPO responsibilities vary between TMA and non-TMA areas, few provisions recognize the “capacity” of an MPO to assume new respon­ sibilities, including some that are currently granted to state DOTs and other transportation entities. Summary of Regional Roundtable: Washington State March 22, 2021 12:00 pm–1:45 pm EST Attendees Kelly McGourty, Director of Transportation Planning, Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Andrea Weckmueller-Behringer, Executive Director, Walla Walla Valley MPO Gabe Philips, Multimodal Planning Division, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Matthew Kunic, Planner, FHWA, Washington State Division Ned Conroy, Community Planner, Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Region X Peter Heffernan, King County Metro Howard Glassman, Senior Planning Consultant, Gannett Fleming, Inc. Wade Carroll, Project Manager, Metro Analytics, PLLC Scott Lane, Principal Investigator, Metro Analytics, PLLC Part I: Best Practices, Challenges, Opportunities in the 3C Process Part I of the Regional Roundtables began with an overview of each MPO’s 3C (continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive) planning process and focused on four discussion questions provided prior to the Regional Roundtable discussion. Overview of the 3C Planning Process • The MPO directors provided a brief overview of their 3C planning process. The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) is a four-county MPO that consists of a policy board, eight committees, 

B-26   Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Strategies for Future Success and a 60-person staff. The PSRC is engaged in coordination with the other MPOs in Washington and participates regularly in the statewide quarterly meetings that are held with other MPOs and their agency partners. • The Walla Walla Valley MPO is a bi-state MPO covering all of Walla Walla County, Washington, and Milton-Freewater, Oregon. It is a smaller and newer MPO that was established following the last decennial census. • The sole function of the Walla Walla MPO is transportation planning. The MPO consists of a 12-member policy board, a technical advisory committee, ad hoc committees, and a two- person staff. The MPO has many of the same responsibilities that are required of larger MPOs, but their work is more compressed. • The Walla Walla MPO promotes a bottom-up process where the MPO members (cities, counties, transit operators, etc.) bring grassroots issues to the MPO to be discussed and resolved. Question 1: How can MPOs and their agency partners be poised and equipped to better address current and future opportunities and challenges (pandemics, market disruptions, or other unexpected events)? • The WSDOT coordinates with the MPOs primarily through regional offices that are linked to the WSDOT Headquarters. The WSDOT and the MPOs have a working partnership that includes a strong department presence in working directly with the MPOs in the development of the required planning documents and reports. This close coordination has been beneficial to the state and MPOs as relatively few MPO corrective actions have been found by the federal agencies during the MPO certification reviews. • The MPOs and WSDOT participate in quarterly coordinating committee meetings. The coordinating committee meetings add value to the 3C planning process as they provide a forum for discussion and an opportunity to share information. The department noted that a future topic for discussion should be how to better equip the MPOs to participate in the prioritization of transportation projects for all the transportation needs in the state. The two MPO directors at this roundtable discussion serve as the current and past chairs of the coordinating committee. The department works directly with the current and past chairs to set the agenda for each coordinating committee meeting. • The 3C planning process must also be viewed as being credible and have the trust of all the participants who are involved in the planning and programming of transportation projects. Those participants should include both state and local officials as well as the members of the Washington State Legislature. Question 2: What strategies can be used to improve the efficacy of MPOs and their agency partners in implementing the 3C planning process? • A basic strategy that the MPOs employ is to use consensus building and avoid a top-down approach throughout the decision-making process. This strategy supports the intent of Washington’s transportation and growth management laws that promote working with the public through a bottom-up and consensus-building approach. • The development of an agreed-upon investment strategy by the WSDOT and MPOs is under consideration to better align state and MPO planning and funding efforts. The state and MPOs’ transportation priorities are the projects contained in the adopted MPO long-range transportation plans. • The importance of informal, early communication between agency and MPO staff estab­ lishes trust and helps align the planning and project development processes. MPO access to WSDOT region staff gives the MPOs the opportunity to work with the state DOT in the early steps leading to the development of MPO plans and programs. It was noted that aligning the boundaries between MPOs and state DOT regions would be a sound strategy to improve the 3C planning process. 

Regional Roundtable Summaries   B-27   • Public involvement continues to be an important strategy leading to the success of an MPO. Quorum challenges will likely become less of a problem in the future if attendees are able to participate through virtual and other creative public engagement techniques. Question 3: Should the roles, responsibilities, and resources of MPOs change in relation to their state, regional, and local transportation partners? • The project selection and programming approach used in Washington State is a factor that limits the success of the 3C planning process. MPOs do not select transportation projects and state legislators play an inordinate role in the selection of mobility projects that are pro­ grammed for funding. However, change may be in the future because the WSDOT regions, who serve as voting members on the MPOs, understand the need to tie project prioritization and programming to federally mandated performance measures that are being adopted by both the department and the MPOs. The MPOs explained that while they may not have a project selection role, projects do not go into their Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) unless they are consistent with the MPO’s adopted vision, goals, and policies. MPOs working together with the state DOT gives them a louder voice in determining their 3C plan­ ning process. • The federal MPO requirements should be less prescriptive and flexibly interpreted by the federal agencies. Washington State has both MPOs and Transportation Planning Organiza­ tions (TPOs) that have different but sometimes overlapping responsibilities (TPOs receive state funds to address specific planning requirements contained in state law). A less prescrip­ tive federal process would reduce redundancy between state and federal requirements and result in a more efficient planning process. Question 4: What are some noteworthy best practices in the 3C planning process that could be replicated (or not) by other MPOs? • WSDOT and MPOs have established quarterly coordination committee meetings that serve as a forum to exchange information and address the many issues and requirements that per­ tain to transportation planning. Communication and consensus building are a hallmark of the 3C planning process used throughout the state of Washington. Peer-to-peer exchanges and the sharing of information between large and smaller size MPOs have greatly benefited those MPOs who have fewer financial resources. • Development and update of statewide formulas used to allocate federal planning and public transportation (5303) funds include the participation of both the WSDOT and the MPOs. • MPOs and WSDOT have embraced performance-based planning and programming in the development of MPO plans and the selection of transportation projects. Both organizations noted the challenges they face in implementing the state’s 3C planning process due in part to legacy projects and the established role of state legislators in the selection of mobility projects. Part II of the Regional Roundtable Discussion Pertained to Identifying and Addressing Major Policy Issues Confronting MPOs and Their Agency Partners In advance of this Regional Roundtable, the MPOs and their agency partners submitted an assortment of major topics for discussion. The chosen topic and highlights of the discussion are summarized below. Changing data—using large data for planning and forecasting, how should data be managed, shared, and applied? • The attendees explained how the cost and access to the data are major challenges that MPOs face in implementing federal and state transportation planning requirements. The data 

B-28   Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Strategies for Future Success department is now the largest department at the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC). Data sets are large, expensive, and complex. The use and sharing of data between the WSDOT and MPOs are complicated by proprietary and legal issues. • Small MPOs feel they cannot fulfill their federal planning requirements without having access to accurate and consistent data. The Walla Walla Valley MPO does not have the budget resources to purchase data and depends on the WSDOT and larger MPOs who have the finan­ cial resources to purchase and share data. The MPOs noted that the peer-to-peer exchanges and collaborative planning approach used in the MPOs and WSDOT are important compo­ nents of their 3C planning process. Summary of Key Findings • The PSRC is engaged in coordination with the other MPOs in Washington and participates regularly in the statewide quarterly meetings that are held with other MPOs and their agency partners. • The Walla Walla Valley MPO has many of the same responsibilities that are required of larger MPOs, but their work is more compressed. The Walla Walla Valley MPO promotes a bottom-up process where the MPO members (cities, counties, transit operators, etc.) bring grassroots issues to the MPO to be discussed and resolved. • WSDOT and MPOs have established quarterly coordinating committee meetings that serve as a forum to exchange information and address the many issues and requirements that per­ tain to transportation planning. Communication and consensus building are a hallmark of the 3C planning process used throughout the state of Washington. Peer-to-Peer exchanges and the sharing of information between large and smaller size MPOs have greatly benefited those MPOs who have fewer financial resources. • Development and update of statewide formulas used to allocate federal planning (PL) and public transportation (5303) funds include the participation of both the WSDOT and the MPOs. • MPOs and WSDOT have embraced performance-based planning and programming in the development of MPO plans and the selection of transportation projects. Both organizations noted the challenges they face in implementing the state’s 3C planning process due in part to “legacy projects” and the established role of state legislators in the selection of mobility projects. Summary of Regional Roundtable: Arizona March 26, 2021 11:00 am–12:45 pm EST Attendees Tim Strow, Director of Transportation Planning and Policy, Maricopa Association of Governments David Meilbeck, Executive Director, MetroPlan-Greater Flagstaff Dan Gabiou, Regional Planning Manager, Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Ed Stillings, Senior Transportation Planner, FHWA, Arizona Division Ted Matley, Director of Planning and Programming, Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Region IX Heather Dalmolin, CEO and General Manager, Mountain Line Transit Agency Howard Glassman, Senior Planning Consultant, Gannett Fleming, Inc. Wade Carroll, Project Manager, Metro Analytics, PLLC Scott Lane, Principal Investigator, Metro Analytics, PLLC 

Regional Roundtable Summaries   B-29   Part I: Best Practices, Challenges, Opportunities in the 3C Process Part I of the Regional Roundtable began with an overview of the MPOs’ 3C (continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive) planning process and focused on four discussion questions provided prior to the Regional Roundtable discussion. Overview of the 3C Planning Process The metropolitan planning organization (MPO) directors provided a brief overview of their 3C planning process. • The Maricopa Association of Governments is the MPO for a two-county region that includes 26 cities and towns and three native nations. The Maricopa Council of Governments has 17 technical committees and eight policy committees and works with multiple partners includ­ ing transit agencies, the ADOT, and the FHWA Arizona Division. • Continued coordination and engagement with their transportation partners are key to the success of their planning program. They are actively involved in extending the region’s current sales tax for transportation and connecting transportation planning with reliable funding sources. Through long-range planning, they address a comprehensive list of issues such as autonomous vehicles, land use, and population and employment growth. • The MetroPlan-Greater Flagstaff MPO members include the city of Flagstaff, Coconino County, Northern Arizona University, the Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority, and the ADOT. MetroPlan-Greater Flagstaff is dealing with envi­ ronmental issues as a part of its transportation planning process. • The city of Flagstaff declared a climate emergency and seeks to reduce emissions by 50%, which has caused the MPO to seek emission-reducing transportation solutions. The transit authority, Coconino County, the state of Arizona, and Northern Arizona University are working together collaboratively to find solutions to this complex problem. This provides the MPO an opportu­ nity to work with its partners to “find common ground, move everyone in the same direction, and facilitate leadership.” • The MPO Executive Director’s 21 years of prior experience at a transit agency gives MetroPlan- Greater Flagstaff the opportunity to address environmental and other planning-related issues from a different perspective. Question 1: How can MPOs and their agency partners be poised and equipped to better address current and future opportunities and challenges (pandemics, market disruptions, or other unexpected events)? • The MPO staff directors noted at an Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO) national conference that a chart presented showed the rate of rise in MPO funding and the rate of rise in new responsibility and that they quickly diverged. The federal response to adequate MPO funding is not moving at an acceptable rate. Performance-based planning, scenario planning, and other newly enacted planning emphasis areas need to be supported with new MPO funds. This problem is compounded by the use of 2010 census population numbers and highway mileage to determine funding allocations in a growth state like Arizona. • The attendees noted that “the future is poised with a tremendous backlog of unfunded needs for roads, bridges, and other transportation infrastructure.” While federal funding for trans­ portation mobility remained relatively constant over recent years, a $4 trillion infrastructure investment is now being discussed by the new federal administration. • MPOs need to be able to adjust quickly to these political swings and be ready to accept a future where things happen faster than expected. Regarding electric vehicle technology, it was mentioned that a study suggests that by the year 2040 90% of automobiles will be electric vehicles. Questions raised by the MPO include: How does this reality blend with 

B-30   Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Strategies for Future Success the $4 trillion infrastructure investments being discussed and how do MPOs prepare long- range plans accordingly? Question 2: What strategies can be used to improve the efficacy of MPOs and their agency partners in implementing the 3C planning process? • The ability of the FTA to effectively participate in the MPO 3C planning process is often hampered by limited travel budgets and the FTA’s multi-state regional organizational struc­ ture. The regional administrator for the FTA Region IX headquarters in the city of San Francisco countered this problem by moving an FTA position to the FHWA Arizona Division Office in the city of Phoenix. This staffing arrangement has benefited the federal agencies, the ADOT, and greatly improved FTA’s ability to work directly with the MPOs. • In Arizona, MPOs and the Council of Governments (COGs) have bi-monthly meetings to discuss statewide and regional transportation planning issues. This coordination has built a stronger working relationship between MPOs and their state and federal partners. The impor­ tance of strong working relationships between MPOs and their partner agencies is practiced throughout Arizona’s 3C planning process. MPOs with smaller budgets have learned that by working cooperatively with larger MPOs, including information and data sharing, they have been able to maximize their available resources. The significant level of collaboration between MPOs in Arizona and their agency partners includes meetings between the ADOT and the MPOs to discuss the upcoming ADOT work program well in advance of its development. Question 3: Should the roles, responsibilities, and resources of MPOs change in relation to their state, regional, and local transportation partners? • The attendees noted that the roles and responsibilities of MPOs should always be evaluated and subject to change based on local and regional conditions, but in general the MPO role works very well. The federal government is not in a position to grant MPOs the responsi­ bilities that are typically handled by state or local governments, such as land-use decision- making. Any decision to shift the responsibilities of MPOs and their partners should begin at the state and regional levels. • The attendees also mentioned that the more important issue surrounding any shift in roles and responsibilities is providing MPOs the funding they need to manage and implement their 3C planning requirements. The planning funds should be consistently applied because all MPOs regardless of their size, have common responsibilities. Likewise, MPOs who have the capacity to do more than what is required by law should be given the opportunity and provided with additional funding to take on additional responsibilities. Question 4: What are some noteworthy best practices in the 3C planning process that could be replicated (or not) by other MPOs? • Large-scale corridor studies have been initiated by the Maricopa Association of Govern­ ments, such as the Sun Corridor that includes the greater Phoenix area, and other associations of governments and MPOs. A joint planning advisory council was formed in 2009 to jointly coordinate planning efforts and “foster a successful and economically viable Sun Corridor in the state of Arizona” between the Maricopa Association of Governments, the Pima Association of Governments, the Central Arizona Governments, the Central Yavapai MPO, and the Sun Corridor MPO. • The Ari-Son Megaregion Council was created by an agreement signed between the mayors of Sonora, Mexico, and Arizona in 2014 to increase dialogue and strengthen cross-border economic development efforts. The objective is to expand local government connections, best practices, provide a forum to elevate the voice of local leadership on binational policy matters, and identify areas for opportunity and collaboration. 

Regional Roundtable Summaries   B-31   • MetroPlan-Greater Flagstaff conducts an annual strategic “advance” (instead of “retreat”) on vision, mission, and guiding principles for the MPO and region. It includes developing tactics and measurable objectives the region wants the MPO to achieve. This strategic advance helps the MPO to keep moving forward and stay relevant. • ADOT and the MPOs are working to centralize data collection and are working on a tool to show in an electronic/GIS format the available data as well as the data gaps. ADOT is trying to centralize data on a five-year plan of projects. • A shared position was created by MetroPlan-Greater Flagstaff and the Mountain Line Transit Agency that is jointly funded and located at the transit agency. This has proven to be a cost- effective way to provide staff services for smaller MPOs and transit agencies. • The FTA Region IX Administrator in San Francisco moved an FTA planning position to the FHWA Division Office in Phoenix to improve the FTA’s ability to effectively participate in Arizona’s statewide and MPO transportation planning process. Part II of the Regional Roundtable Discussion Pertained to Identifying and Addressing Major Policy Issues Confronting MPOs and Their Agency Partners In advance of this roundtable discussion, the MPOs and their agency partners submitted an assortment of major topics for discussion. The chosen topic and highlights of the discussion are summarized below. • The application of new technologies in the transportation planning process • The Maricopa Association of Governments is actively involved in Transportation System Management & Operations (TSM&O) planning activities and has an active Intelligent Trans­ portation System (ITS) master plan. An ITS Committee works directly with ADOT on the management of the freeway system. • Through a pilot program, they support other Arizona MPOs and agencies who are engaged in TSM&O activities and share information to reduce costs and eliminate unnecessary redun­ dancy in program development. • The Maricopa Association of Governments and MetroPlan-Greater Flagstaff have responded to the COVID-19 pandemic by successfully incorporating new technologies into the 3C plan­ ning process. Agency partners, including the FHWA division staff, have found that virtual meetings greatly increase their attendance and ability to participate at MPO meetings. The MPOs have found virtual hybrid meetings (consisting of both in person and virtual attendees) to be an effective communication tool. Summary of Key Findings The Maricopa MPO is actively involved in extending the region’s current sales tax for trans­ portation and connecting transportation planning with reliable funding sources. Through long- range planning, they address a comprehensive list of issues such as autonomous vehicles, land use, and population and employment growth. The MetroPlan-Greater Flagstaff MPO is dealing with environmental issues as a part of its transportation planning process. The city of Flagstaff declared a climate emergency and seeks to reduce emissions by 50%, which has caused the MPO to seek emission-reducing transportation solutions. The transit authority, Coconino County, the state of Arizona, and Northern Arizona University are working collaboratively to find solutions to this complex problem. This provides the MPO an opportunity to work with its partners to “find common ground, move everyone in the same direction, and facilitate leadership.” The MPO Executive Director’s 21 years of prior 

B-32   Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Strategies for Future Success experience at a transit agency gives MetroPlan-Greater Flagstaff the opportunity to address environmental and other planning-related issues from a different perspective. Key findings from the Regional Roundtable discussion included the following. • Large-scale corridor studies have been initiated by the Maricopa Association of Govern­ ments, such as the Sun Corridor that includes the greater Phoenix area, and other associations of governments and MPOs. A joint planning advisory council was formed in 2009 to jointly coordinate planning efforts and “foster a successful and economically viable Sun Corridor in the state of Arizona” between the Maricopa Association of Governments, the Pima Association of Governments, the Central Arizona Governments, the Central Yavapai MPO, and the Sun Corridor MPO. • The Ari-Son Megaregion Council was created by an agreement signed between the mayors of Sonora, Mexico, and Arizona in 2014 to increase dialogue and strengthen cross-border economic development efforts. The objective is to expand local government connections, best practices, provide a forum to elevate the voice of local leadership on binational policy matters, and identify areas for opportunity and collaboration. • MetroPlan-Greater Flagstaff conducts an annual strategic “advance” (instead of “retreat”) on vision, mission, and guiding principles for the MPO and region. It includes developing tactics and measurable objectives the region wants the MPO to achieve. This strategic advance helps the MPO to keep moving forward and stay relevant. • ADOT and the MPOs are working to centralize data collection and develop a tool in an electronic/GIS format that shows available data and the data gaps. The department is trying to centralize data on a five-year plan of projects. • A shared position was created by MetroPlan-Greater Flagstaff and the Mountain Line Transit Agency that is jointly funded and located at the transit agency. This has proven to be a cost- effective way to provide staff services for smaller MPOs and transit agencies. • The FTA Region IX Administrator in San Francisco moved an FTA planning position to the FHWA Division Office in Phoenix to improve the FTA’s ability to effectively participate in Arizona’s statewide and MPO transportation planning process. • Transportation System Management & Operations (TSM&O) planning activities can be expanded in smaller MPOs by establishing collaborative partnerships with larger MPOs. The Maricopa Association of Governments is partnering with smaller MPOs in Arizona to expand TSM&O planning activities in the MPO 3C planning process. Summary of Regional Roundtable: Texas March 31, 2021 11:45 am–1:30 pm EST Attendees Chris Evila, MPO Program Administrator, Waco Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Michael Morris, Director, Dallas-Fort Worth MPO Jessica Butler, Director of Transportation Planning & Programming, Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Brian Barth, Director of Project Planning & Development, TxDOT Michael Leary, Director, Planning & Program Development, FHWA, Texas Division Jose Campos, Planning Team Leader, FHWA, Texas Division Don Koski, Deputy Regional Administrator, Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Region VI Tom Lambert, President and CEO, Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (Metro) 

Regional Roundtable Summaries   B-33   Howard Glassman, Senior Planning Consultant, Gannett Fleming, Inc. Wade Carroll, Project Manager, Metro Analytics, PLLC Scott Lane, Principal Investigator, Metro Analytics, PLLC Part I: Best Practices, Challenges, Opportunities in 3C Planning Process Part I of the Regional Roundtable began with an overview of each MPO’s 3C (continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive) planning process and focused on four discussion questions provided prior to the Regional Roundtable discussion. Overview of the 3C Planning Process • The MPO directors provided a brief overview of their 3C planning process. The directors noted that the 3C planning process goes back to the 1970s, which means MPOs have a long history of working with their agency partners. • The Waco MPO coordinates transportation planning for all of McLennan County in Central Texas. The MPO expects to be designated as a Transportation Management Area (TMA) due to the increase in population and the results of the 2020 U.S. Census. A TMA MPO has an urbanized area of over 200,000 in population. • In Texas, non-TMA MPOs are referred to as “small” MPOs, and TMA MPOs are referred to as “large” MPOs. The Waco MPO, TxDOT, and researchers at Texas A&M University are working cooperatively to evaluate what changes and new requirements will be expected of the Waco MPO resulting from the TMA designation. Small MPOs in Texas have a base amount of funds to operate but not enough to fund special studies as required by federal regulations. TxDOT has set aside a portion of its state planning and research (SP&R) funds for smaller MPOs that need additional funds to conduct their 3C planning activities. MPOs must apply to TxDOT to access those funds. TxDOT also assists the MPOs by using toll credits to provide the non-federal local match that is required for federal planning funds. • The Dallas-Fort Worth MPO (North Central Texas Council of Governments) serves as the MPO for the 12-county Dallas-Fort Worth region. The MPO is a TMA and notes that the federal planning requirements for large MPOs are basically no different than the require­ ments for smaller MPOs. However, meeting those basic requirements is much more difficult for small MPOs because they are not able to benefit from economies of scale that are available to larger MPOs. • The Dallas-Fort Worth MPO can leverage its transportation dollars and has been successful in taking down silos that can hamper the flexible use of transportation funds. The Dallas-Fort Worth MPO is engaged in various levels of planning, which include neighborhood plan­ ning, regional planning, and international logistics. Larger MPOs have access to data sources that smaller MPOs cannot locate or afford, and therefore, it is necessary for larger MPOs to assist smaller MPOs in meeting the federal planning requirements. Question 1: How can MPOs and their agency partners be poised and equipped to better address current and future opportunities and challenges (pandemics, market disruptions, or other unexpected events)? • TxDOT noted that “unexpected events” will continue to be an issue that transportation plan­ ning partners will need to address. It will require a greater need for on-demand decision- making tools and data sources that can be used for real-time decision-making. The recent unexpected climate events that were experienced in Texas illustrated the need for enhanced on-demand decision-making among transportation partners. 

B-34   Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Strategies for Future Success • The 3C planning requirements need to be flexibly interpreted because federal requirements take a long time to change. It is also important for MPOs and their agency partners to con­ stantly assess how well they are working together and recognize that obstacles to collaboration can stem from political and governmental reasons. • Funding for the 3C planning process needs to be assured and set at a level that enables an MPO to assemble a quality staff that can fulfill the many planning requirements. Federal agencies need to be involved in providing technical assistance, identifying new data sources, and making timely decisions especially when those decisions are elevated within an agency to a higher level. • For transit, MPOs need to be independent organizations that provide a vision and a sharing of information. Transit agencies promote mobility integration and recognize the important role of MPOs in connecting all modes of transportation with transit plans and services. Question 2: What strategies can be used to improve the efficacy of MPOs and their agency partners in implementing the 3C planning process? • New communication skills and techniques will continue to be an important strategy used throughout the 3C planning process. Virtual meetings have been beneficial in improving the efficacy of the planning process and new public participation and outreach problems will continue to evolve. • The FTA has taken significant actions to enhance its role in the 3C planning process. It has entered into single planning agreements with its counterpart, FHWA Division Office partners, to promote coordinated and consistent transportation planning. The FTA has also transferred Section 5303 planning funds to TxDOT so that those funds can be allocated as part of a con­ solidated planning grant. • The Texas Association of MPOs (TEMPO) is a statewide organization that provides a forum for discussion between the MPOs and their agency partners. It provides an opportunity for all the participants in the 3C process to collectively address statewide issues and share infor­ mation in a timely manner. It is a volunteer organization operating without a paid staff that receives support services from TxDOT and the Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI). All MPOs in Texas representing any area or portion of an area within the state of Texas are eligible for membership in TEMPO. Associate membership is extended to the professional staff of TxDOT, FHWA, and FTA. • An important 3C planning process strategy is to “focus on outcomes.” For example, large MPOs are exploring the use of partnership funding agreements with smaller MPOs to assist them in advancing projects that currently have only partial funding in the TxDOT Work Program. This enables projects to move forward in smaller MPO areas while ensuring that the larger MPOs will be reimbursed in the TxDOT Work Program during specified future years. • The transit operator noted that “measured risks” are another important strategy that needs to be part of the planning process. It is critical for MPOs to get out of the box and think creatively in a way similar to how transit agencies must operate. This includes establishing a vision for the region and relationship building between MPO members (cities, counties, transit operators, etc.) and their state and federal agency partners. Question 3: Should the roles, responsibilities, and resources of MPOs change in relation to their state, regional, and local transportation partners? • Regardless of their size, MPOs are facing an enormous challenge in being able to meet the federal planning requirements. To meet this challenge, the attendees suggested different plan­ ning requirements based on population thresholds for TMA MPOs. The recommended MPO divisions were non-TMA MPOs, TMA MPOs with a population over 200,000 to 1,000,000, and TMA MPOs with a population over one million. Federal agencies should identify the 

Regional Roundtable Summaries   B-35   top 18 or so requirements they expect MPOs to conduct and assign more of those planning responsibilities and funding to MPOs over one million in population. • The population growth rate of a state should also be factored into the federal planning fund distribution formula. It is estimated that the state of Texas is expected to grow from 27 million people today to over 47 million people by the year 2050. • The MPO executive directors noted that “Texas will figure it out” if flexibility is provided to the states on how they address MPO planning requirements. Texas has adopted two propo­ sitions to provide additional funding for transportation mobility—a tax on oil and gas and the other a sales tax on motor vehicles. Question 4: What are some noteworthy best practices in the 3C planning process that could be replicated (or not) by other MPOs? • The Association of Texas MPOs (TEMPO) is a statewide organization that meets at least quar­ terly. All MPOs in Texas representing any area or portion of an area within the state of Texas are eligible for membership in TEMPO. Associate membership is extended to the professional staff of TxDOT, FHWA, and FTA. The association has adopted bylaws and among its duties is providing a conduit for the exchange of information and ideas. • The MPOs are working with TxDOT and the Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) to provide inter-MPO training on specific subjects such as resiliency planning. • TxDOT is working to assist the MPOs in securing data that is necessary to conduct the requirements of the MPO planning process. It was noted that some data sources restrict the analysis of data to TxDOT. • Peer-to-peer exchange programs conducted by FHWA have enhanced the MPO planning process. For example, MPOs have participated in managed lanes and fiscal constraint peer- to-peer exchange activities. • TxDOT has set aside a portion of its state planning and research (SP&R) funds for smaller MPOs that need additional funding to conduct the 3C planning requirements. MPOs must apply to TxDOT to access those funds. • The FTA Region VI has entered into a single planning agreement with its counterpart FHWA Texas Division partner to promote coordinated and consistent transportation planning. FTA has also transferred Section 5303 planning funds to TxDOT so that those funds can be allo­ cated as part of a consolidated planning grant. • Large MPOs in Texas are exploring the use of partnership funding agreements with smaller MPOs to assist them in advancing projects that currently have only partial funding in the TxDOT Work Program. This enables projects to move forward in smaller MPO areas while ensuring that the larger MPOs will be reimbursed in the TxDOT Work Program during speci­ fied future years. Part II of the Regional Roundtable Discussion Pertained to Identifying and Addressing Major Policy Issues Confronting MPOs and Their Agency Partners Part II of the Texas area Regional Roundtable discussion was not held due to time constraints. Summary of Key Findings The metropolitan planning organization (MPO) directors provided a brief overview of their 3C planning process. The directors noted that the 3C planning process goes back to the 1970s, which means MPOs have a long history in working with their agency partners. The Waco MPO coordinates transportation planning for all of McLennan County in Central Texas. The MPO 

B-36   Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Strategies for Future Success expects to be designated as a Transportation Management Area (TMA) due to the increase in population and the results of the 2020 U.S. Census. In Texas, non-TMA MPOs are referred to as “small” MPOs, and TMA MPOs are referred to as “large” MPOs. The Waco MPO, TxDOT, and researchers at Texas A&M University are working cooperatively to evaluate what changes and new requirements will be expected of the Waco MPO resulting from the TMA designation. Small MPOs in Texas have a base amount of funds to operate but not enough to fund special studies as required by federal regulations. TxDOT has set aside a portion of its SP&R funds for smaller MPOs who need additional funds to conduct their 3C planning activities. MPOs must apply to TxDOT to access those funds. TxDOT also assists the MPOs by using toll credits to provide the non-federal local match that is required for federal planning funds. The Dallas-Fort Worth MPO (North Central Texas Council of Governments) serves as the MPO for the 12 county Dallas-Fort Worth region. The MPO is already a TMA and notes that the federal planning requirements for large MPOs are basically no different than the requirements for small MPOs. However, meeting those basic requirements is much more difficult for small MPOs because they are not able to benefit from economies of scale that are available to larger MPOs. The Dallas-Fort Worth MPO can leverage its transportation dollars and has been suc­ cessful in taking down silos that can hamper the flexible use of transportation funds. The Dallas- Fort Worth MPO is engaged in various levels of planning that include neighborhood planning, regional planning, and international logistics. Larger MPOs have access to data sources that smaller MPOs cannot locate or afford, and therefore, it is necessary for larger MPOs to assist smaller MPOs in meeting the federal planning requirements. The Texas area Regional Roundtable discussion was attended by representatives from MPOs, the TxDOT, and federal agencies. It resulted in the following key findings. • The Association of Texas MPOs (TEMPO) is a statewide organization that meets at least quarterly. All MPOs in Texas representing any area or portion of an area within the state of Texas are eligible for membership in TEMPO. Associate membership is extended to the pro­ fessional staff of TxDOT, FHWA, and FTA. The association has adopted bylaws and among its duties is to provide a conduit for the exchange of information and ideas. • The MPOs are working with TxDOT and the Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) to provide Inter-MPO training on specific subjects such as resiliency planning. • TxDOT is working to assist the MPOs in securing data that is necessary to conduct the requirements of the MPO planning process. It was noted that some data sources restrict the analysis of data to TxDOT. • Peer-to-peer exchange programs conducted by FHWA have enhanced the MPO planning process. For example, MPOs have participated in managed lanes and fiscal constraint peer- to-peer exchange activities. • TxDOT has set aside a portion of its SP&R funds for smaller MPOs that need additional funding to conduct the 3C planning requirements. MPOs must apply to TxDOT to access those funds. • The FTA Region VI has entered into a single planning agreement with its counterpart FHWA Texas Division partner to promote coordinated and consistent transportation planning. FTA has also transferred Section 5303 planning funds to TxDOT so that those funds can be allo­ cated as part of a consolidated planning grant. • Large MPOs in Texas are exploring the use of partnership funding agreements with smaller MPOs to assist them in advancing projects that currently have only partial funding in the TxDOT Work Program. This enables projects to move forward in smaller MPO areas while ensuring that the larger MPOs will be reimbursed in the TxDOT Work Program during speci­ fied future years. 

Regional Roundtable Summaries   B-37   • Regardless of their size, MPOs are facing an enormous challenge in being able to meet the federal planning requirements. To meet this challenge, the attendees suggested different plan­ ning requirements based on population thresholds for TMA MPOs. The recommended MPO divisions were, non-TMA MPOs, TMA MPOs with a population over 200,000 to 1,000,000, and TMA MPOs with a population over one million. Federal agencies should identify the top 18 or so requirements they expect MPOs to conduct and assign more of those planning responsibilities and funding to MPOs over one million in population. The population growth rate of a state should also be factored into the federal planning fund distribution formula. It is estimated that the state of Texas is expected to grow from 27 million people today to over 47 million people by the year 2050.