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 D Conference Activities Summary The research team was required to quickly coordinate with conference organizers in order to Objectives of Conference Outreach procure space at each of the three conference events in late 2019: APTA (American Public Transit Association), AMPO (Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations), and NARC (National • Raise awareness of this Association of Regional Councils). These three conferences and organizations were cited in the research project. • Acquire specific and scope of work as ideal target audiences for the initial outreach to MPOs and partnering agencies. consistent information Due to time constraints and varying conference arrangements, the research team had to develop from many participants specific approaches to engaging people at each event. The generalized process, along with excep­ on key topics. tions for each conference, is listed below. • Conduct interactive Focus Group Meetings (sessions) 1. Coordinated with conference organizer(s) to explain the purpose of the outreach session and with 10–15 Conference participants to facilitate NCHRP Project 08-122, including the relevance of the project and its outcomes to the confer­ a deeper dive into several ence participants. This step was facilitated due to the fact that all three conferences had key topics. people who also are members of the NCHRP Project 08-122 panel. 2. Numerous coordination contacts were conducted to effectively plan with each conference to take maximum advantage of each venue, options for space, and time slots that were still available. 3. Advertising for the events differed for each conference. For AMPO, staff was able to insert the event into the conference agenda in a prominent location, and the conference organizers provided advance lists of conference registrants that were used to develop a targeted invita­ tion through EventBrite™ software. The NARC Conference was an executive director’s meet­ ing that achieved the highest attendance on record. The NARC participants were a “captive” audience since all attendees attended every session during the conference, including the NCHRP Project 08-122 session. Some participants were not affiliated with an MPO but with regional planning agencies. 4. Simultaneous with the arrangements for the three conferences being undertaken, a new social media platform was developed using the PublicInput.com platform. The principal purpose of the social media platform (at this stage of the project) was to create a “backup” system for gathering information from all conference participants as well as staff that might later fill out the survey. The PublicInput.com platform also allows for tracking separately sourced inputs, so that conference participants from AMPO and those from NARC received different URLs to link to the online survey. Finally, the PublicInput.com platform also allowed input from online participants and input received during the session from participants’ cell phones. 5. A draft, paper-based survey was created that introduced the project and repeated the online questions (there were slight differences attributable to the timing of the events and finaliz­ ing of the survey instruments). These paper surveys were handed out during the conference events, not only to the participants of the NCHRP Project 08-122 session in each conference but were also made available to every participant regardless of whether or not they attended the session. Paper surveys were subsequently input individually into the PublicInput.com D-1   

D-2   Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Strategies for Future Success platform, again using a trackable system that could trace surveys and results back to the event where they were obtained. Additionally, both the zip code and MPO (or other organization) name were requested for each survey completed, whether online, during the NCHRP sessions, or on the paper survey. 6. Regarding the NCHRP sessions, all were facilitated by one of the two co-investigators (Thera Black at APTA and Scott Lane at AMPO and NARC). The APTA Conference took the form of a panel discussion, while the AMPO and NARC conferences employed the online survey taking and participant interactive features described in number 4 above. The study review panel commented on the preliminary survey and methodological approach to engagement at the conferences. The survey questions were changed as a result of those com­ ments to focus more on financing and engagement as well as numerous other changes. During the conference sessions, these topics were used to frame the discussion with participants, although they were encouraged to volunteer topics and bring up associated issues that were meaningful to them as the discussion evolved during each session. American Public Transit Association The initial meeting that is summarized was a collaboration with the American Public Transit Association (APTA) staff and the Metropolitan Planning Subcommittee moderator on a series of questions to frame the discussion for a panel of MPO-transit pairs convened to talk about successful partnerships in coordinated regional decision-making. This session informed two areas of relevance to the project. 1. Willingness to Collaborate between MPOs and transit agencies. The transit markets repre­ sented were primarily rail-based and large metropolitan areas. The Metropolitan Planning Subcommittee, which hosted this session, was favorable to including municipalities in its future membership (land-use authority, revenue generation, and infrastructure maintenance responsibilities were cited as reasons for inclusion). Additional parties, such as state depart­ ments of transportation, FHWA, FTA, and new mobility providers, are also important to future discussions. 2. Transit reporting and technological change. The other preliminary discussion was on creating longer-term transit reporting standards, from one to 20 years. Relevant to the project is that the motivation for this discussion stemmed in part from the need for existing standards to keep up with technological changes, balancing the frequency of reporting with the flexibility needed to adapt to these changes. Transit and Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Partners in Regional Decision-Making was a moderated panel discussion featuring four pairs of MPO-transit agencies from different areas. The moderator was Lisa Kay Schweyer of Carnegie Mellon University, who brings both MPO and transit agency experience to her role as program manager for the Traffic21 Institute and the Mobility21 National University Transportation Center. The panel consisted of the following members. • Alicia Brave – Miami-Dade Transit • Eileen Bouele – Miami-Dade Transportation Planning Organization • Grace Gallucci – Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency • Floun’say Caver – Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority • James Carrington – Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority • John Swanson – Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments • Holly Arnold – Maryland Transit Administration • Todd Lang – Baltimore Metropolitan Council 

Conference Activities Summary   D-3   Issues relevant to our research were developed in coordination with Rich Weaver and input provided by Ms. Schweyer and reviewed with the panel. • Challenges to coordinated regional planning from the transit perspective; • Disruptive technologies and how they are accommodated within the regional process; • Long-range forecasting when the past is no predictor of the future; and • Responsiveness of the regulatory framework as agencies adapt to emerging needs. The format was for each pair of agencies to give a brief overview of their regions and working relationship to provide context before Ms. Schweyer began the facilitated question-and-response part of the agenda. Participants received the questions ahead of time. Mayor Oliver Gilbert of Miami Gardens was invited to join the panel on the dais and offer some opening remarks. All the MPOs present represented large regions. They all emphasized that they plan for all modes of travel and work to incorporate land-use considerations in their plans. All spoke to the importance of coordination and collaboration with transit; of having transit “embedded” in the MPO process; and having interagency staff relationships in addition to policy level relationships. All four MPOs also spoke of the importance of having cities and counties at the table. This senti­ ment was echoed in the morning discussion, stressing that state and federal participation in the regional process is good and important but that it is even more important to engage munici­ palities. As one participant noted, transit agencies and MPOs have a natural affinity because, like MPOs, transit agencies typically transcend municipal boundaries, making them more “regional” in nature than municipalities yet totally dependent on them. Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations and National Association of Regional Councils The flow for these two conference sessions is presented in the text box on this page with AMPO/NARC Session Flow people being invited to participate through interactive question polling. In total, 105 completed • Discuss findings of most- responses were received from three sources—the National Association of Regional Councils often-cited challenges to (NARC) and the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO) presentations elaborate on the nature of those challenges by the and online participation. In both sessions, people were initially asked to prioritize the key chal­ focus group participants. lenge (topic) areas, they were then separated into breakout groups to identify at least five key • Describe resource words or short phrases that amplified the top-ranked challenges. challenges, add and enhance from those shown The summary in Figure D-1 includes the results of paper-based surveys and online survey on postcard/questionnaire. response results received from participants at both conferences and those who participated • Describe partnerships in online during and after the conferences. the MPO realms of work and how they have or will change going forward. • Briefly describe how this Findings project can best be of service to your MPO. The following represents the main findings from the conference engagement. Innovation in the Face of Technological and Related Changes. While new technologies have the potential to help regions increase access and address congestion, there is general uncertainty about how to model that future or account for the effects of new technologies in the regional planning process and investment strategies. Transit services will become more customer- focused and integrated with other mobility services to create a seamless travel experience that Transit services will become is made possible by technology. Some participants noted that the ability of transit to smoothly more customer-focused integrate with new mobility options will depend in part on the ability of those programs and and integrated with other mobility services to create a services to align with transit’s commitment to ADA, Title VI, etc. The less accessible those new seamless travel experience models are for all transit users, the harder it will be to integrate these new mobility options into that is made possible by a seamless and integrated transportation system. technology. 

D-4 Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Strategies for Future Success 30 TOP THREE CHALLENGES Third Choice FACING MPOS IN THE FUTURE Second Choice 1 25 First Choice Total Top 3 w/Comments Chart 1: Funding sources for projects, 20 followed by resiliency-related matters and collaboration with the public and 15 partnering agencies, were the foremost choices for top challenges registered by 10 participants at the conferences and in the online survey. 5 In Chart 1, the number of first, second, 0 and third-choice responses are shown in the green-shaded columns. The total top- three responses received for each challenge is indicated by the dark gray column. This total includes responses from open-ended “other” comments received to this question if the “other” comment could be readily assigned to one topic. The remaining two questions provide additional details on these challenges in Charts 2 and 3. WHAT MAKES THESE 2 CHALLENGES HARD TO DEAL WITH? 7% AMPO Not enough money 9% On-Line Session Political controversy 40% 34% Need better tools 12% Need more training 54% 18% TOTAL NARC Not enough time PARTICIPANTS Session BY SOURCE 26% 3 WHICH PARTNERS CAN HELP YOUR ORGANIZATION ADDRESS THESE CHALLENGES NOW OR IN THE FUTURE? Conferences like AMPO, APTA, NARC, etc. State DOT(s) Research Institutions like TTI, Volpe, Rutgers, etc. FHWA / FTA (federal) Staff and Resources Internet keyword search External Resources like FHWA/SHRP2, TCRP, etc. Peers within my own State(s) 0 20 40 60 80 100 Figure D-1. Infographic summary of three conference survey questions. 

Conference Activities Summary   D-5   Data and Data Sharing. Data sharing between MPOs and transit is a relatively recent phenom­ enon that has opened up new resources for modeling and data analysis. Transit agencies increas­ ingly collect a wealth of travel characteristics through their automated data collection systems. MPOs need to work closely with transit agencies to understand data resources that are available and establish protocols and agreements for accessing important data. Data-sharing agreements with Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) can provide unparalleled trip-making data to support regional planning and transit service analysis. The key is negotiating for data sharing through the local agency contracts required for TNCs to operate within municipalities. Because data sharing is negotiated on an agency-by-agency basis, it is important that they are all onboard and work to obtain access to this information in the terms of the contracts. Data remains critical: the current household travel survey in Baltimore reflects the region’s interest in monitoring changes in household travel characteristics with the advent of new mobility options since the last survey. While changes will be incremental, MPOs need to pay particular attention to shifts taking place in their own regions. Communities within regions are playing regulatory catch-up with the new mobility options descending upon their com­ munities. From Uber and Lyft to e-scooters, the private sector deploys the means and then government scrambles to figure out how to regulate new mobility to mitigate unintended impacts. MPOs and their partners need to think big and look ahead to the transformations on the horizons while at the same time respond to the immediate needs associated with recently deployed technologies. MPOs need to consider new technologies and incorporate bold ideas into their long-range plans, but at the same time recognize that community values probably are not changing very much. People still care about access, equity, and fiscal responsibility even though the means of delivering mobility is changing tremendously. People still want walkable communities and want governments to use existing infrastructure and resources wisely. This may be a useful reminder going forward in the face of so much change that core principles are still valid in light of autono­ mous vehicles or other emerging concerns. Embracing these values may be a way of making sense of the changes and evaluating the roles that they will play in the future. Role and Impact of New Mobility Partners. Among the large transit agencies at APTA there was a sense that new mobility partners while shaking things up, do not pose a grave threat to transit or the general order of things. Participants recognized that the very definition of “multimodal” is being redefined with the advent of shared mobility options like Lyft and Uber, e-scooters, and other e-devices, and that new mechanisms we have not yet considered will be deployed in the near future. One person compared TNCs to taxi cabs, and another added that they have helped to fill a shortage of taxis in that region. TNCs were described as partners in a “frictionless” customer-oriented transportation system, partners with particularly good technical capabilities. They will be a part of the mobility solution. The final roles are still evolving, and all expect more evolution in the transit-TNC relationship. It was noted by one participant that rideshare services make it possible for more and more people to live without a car. These are people who exten­ sively use a variety of modes of travel, with some part of the time being transit. Attracting those people to transit is easier than attracting someone who owns a car to transit. There was some pushback on the efficacy of new mobility playbooks in that TNCs have yet to present a sustainable funding model, and they do not have to meet the regulatory, Title VI, and security requirements of transit agencies. There is no incentive to serve disadvantaged popula­ tions, necessitating oversight on the part of government to ensure mobility benefits are fairly distributed. At the same time, TNCs are starting to come under pressure from their investors to turn a profit, raising questions as to what kinds of changes TNCs will make to their operating models in order to be profitable. 

D-6   Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Strategies for Future Success Several participants spoke about the need for government to be an active partner to ensure congestion impacts do not outweigh mobility benefits and that all system users benefit from services. It was noted that Uber and Lyft each had to negotiate operating contracts with all of the individual municipalities in the Washington, DC, metro area because there is not a single overarching policy governing their operations. MWCOG was able to get the district itself to require data-sharing agreements in its terms of service for the TNCs. They were not as successful in obtaining agreements from the other municipalities in the region. MWCOG finds the travel data extremely helpful in understanding trip-making characteristics throughout the day. MPOs and transit agencies may be able to look to the aviation industry for insights into how to plan for and accommodate future technology uncertainties and disruptions. The aviation industry has been working to test and incorporate highly and fully autonomous technologies into a system reliant on outdated technologies while developing protocols for working with new partners and protocols. They have been leaders in integrating emerging and disruptive technol­ ogies. Miami-Dade Metro is actively working to recruit transportation technology companies to the area to ensure that the region’s residents have access to the widest array of travel options today and in the future. The region sees an economic benefit as well by demonstrating a forward- looking, technology-friendly attitude toward these new industries. Finally, MPOs noted three coordinated conditions required for success: adaptability, flex­ ibility, and integration. The rules of engagement have changed. There is no one answer to most questions, and if there is, it may be messy. But the cost of inaction is greater than the cost and risk of engagement, despite the uncertainties. Plans need to consider all options available today with the understanding that tomorrow there will be new options, and so MPO plans need to adapt and flex to provide useful direction while responding to these emerging options. Rec­ ognize that options currently available today and in the near future are actually test options: some current options will make it and others will not. MPOs need to work to integrate the most promising options into their transportation system plans and be ready for new ones. Traditional Partnership Challenges. One of the topic areas was expressed directly by partici­ pants: as they face these transformational changes, what are the big challenges/opportunities they face as MPO-transit partners going forward into the 21st century? The definition of “region” is going to change, not because of transportation but because of economic and other forces. We will think of regions more like FHWA’s megaregions, and so we will need to think about regional transportation in that same vein. The Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA) is actively studying the feasibility of a hyperloop from Cleveland to Chicago and has just added to that study a link to Pittsburgh. They are also looking at adding other links that connect this megaregion to others, such as links to Minneapolis, New York, and Washington, DC. Public Transportation. The definition of traditional public transportation will also change. NOACA is looking at service types, such as commuter travel, personal travel, school travel, freight travel, as well as service times (e.g., Cleveland to Chicago in 30 minutes). They are also looking at how it would integrate with more traditional transit at either end, and how integrated fare struc­ tures would support connecting transit services (note: this perspective may also redefine “first- mile/last-mile” challenges). Setting an appropriate stage and level of expectations for future transit service is now paramount, particularly when thinking about the long-term future. Integrating con­ nected and autonomous vehicles (AVs in particular) into current thinking and planning for transit has been and will continue to be a major challenge for the industry. Traditional concerns, such as declining ridership and maintenance, exacerbate the forward-facing challenges, too. Meaningful and Mutually Rewarding Member Participation. Agreements are useful for for­ malizing understandings, funding strategies, data protocols, and more. Agreements can help establish appropriate land use and zoning in priority corridors when paired with a funding strategy 

Conference Activities Summary   D-7   for corridor projects. All four MPOs at the APTA summit stressed that transit has full access to their funding programs, whether for vehicle purchase, studies and station area planning, or capital projects. The Capitol Region team talked about joint MPO/transit efforts to increase biking and walking. Benefits to the MWCOG are reduced VMT, more active travel, and support for walkable communities. Benefits to transit are a documented increase in ridership. They have collaborated to find effective ways to partner that increase biking and walking opportunities. Plan Financing and Implementation. MPO investments into studies—corridor, bike/pedestrian, design, station area development, and other issues—help to advance project implementation while ensuring that there is consistency between study outcomes and regional plans. An example of implementation was provided by the Miami-Dade TPO, which flexes $75 million per year through 2023 and then $30 million per year for another 30 years to projects that support its designated mobility corridors. The TPO obtained approval from FHWA for MPOs to use CMAQ funds to finance Uber-style on-demand programs. Regulation Adherence. Emerging technologies and conditions are changing too fast for rigid or inflexible structures to keep up. Regulatory systems and structures need to be less rigid and specific, more “nebulous,” and speak to goals and intended outcomes instead of hard standards. Regulatory structures need to be more flexible so that government can better adapt and keep up with changes instead of always being so far behind and trying to catch up. When regula­ tion is rigid and specific it becomes quickly outdated. The government needs to be nimble and responsive, and it needs a regulatory structure that allows that. Government cannot use the “go fast and break things” model employed by private technology companies driven by profit, but it must find its own ways to innovate. Government must always keep the people it serves at the forefront of its thinking. Some of those people have special needs that will not be profitable. Flexibility in the regulatory framework is needed, but it must put people front and center in its considerations. Staffing Capacity and Capabilities. More people moving into an area equates to greater num­ bers and complexities of challenges. These increases in service areas or population have not translated into increases in staffing. One participant noted that the state department of trans­ portation has not increased funding to MPOs to address changing requirements but has added staff. Other issues noted included succession planning in addition to clear communication gen­ erally and training boards and educating stakeholders in basic MPO processes specifically. Changing Demographics and Travel Patterns. Participants noted that recreation preferences, housing/land use, and shifting agricultural populations have all presented challenges. Tradi­ tional thoughts about millennial populations may not always be true: a recent commute survey suggests that millennial rates of car ownership have gone up and continue going up with the acquisition of a home. Both older and millennial populations undergo changes in their life cycle that favor alternative mobility options that go beyond just Uber. The NARC summit partici­ pants noted (from their breakout tables) that generational differences, some of which are driving various kinds of land-use development, are key. An increasingly diverse population, including Hispanic populations, empty nesters, and aging populations, represent unique demographics that nevertheless share some of the same values and concerns about mobility options. Some of these changes have made traditional streams of funding for schools, revitalization efforts, and affordable housing options more problematic. Financing of Projects or Operations. When asked, about one-third of the participants in the room said that they have trouble sometimes acquiring local matching funds for operational (federal) funds. The rules that are associated with the flows of funding can be confusing or changeable. One breakout table noted several practices that are noteworthy and some that are precautionary. One of the latter was a cut in motor licensing and fuels taxes that “gutted” local and 

D-8   Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Strategies for Future Success state revenues. Transportation benefit districts and local funding for federal matches were cited as good practices, sometimes driven by necessity since state legislatures do not want to commit to funding local projects. The overarching theme of local and tribal limitations and declining state and federal funds are poorly understood and felt especially keenly in smaller jurisdictions, which find it almost impossible to get projects constructed. Others noted that resource-intensive industries leaving the area have left a funding and revenue gap in their wake. In Utah, MPOs have been able to exchange funds to better match federal funds, created by the passage of a state law that allows swapping 85 cents of local money to get one dollar of federal funds. One state department of transportation person present said that they (the state) are the middlemen deal­ ing with insane federal rules but with a lot of responsibility to help local communities. Internal (Staff) Challenges. The tables that dealt with collaboration cited multi-disciplinary staff, capacity-building (data and tools by staff), effective communication within and outside of the organization, and access to opportunities as key factors in bringing home a message to stake­ holders. While there are considerably more new sources of data, learning how to use them and integrating them into existing practices are challenging. Finding a common ground within various groups, particularly between different generations of people, was challenging; a lack of two-way communication was also cited. One issue with the surfeit of data available today is that it is easy to “bludgeon” people with too much data in the planning process. Engaging people in a storytelling- type of involvement creates better communication channels, as does using visual information. Resiliency and Sustainability. Climate change, sometimes associated with growing popula­ tions, was cited as a major issue in some (but not all or a majority) of MPOs/areas. The practice of resiliency planning is undergoing a major revolution, engaging infrastructure asset man­ agement and mitigation—often on political terms. Resiliency must become as comfortable a term as addressing congestion is now; currently, the topic is almost taboo. Using infrastructure management and asset control can help bridge that divide since when a bridge is washed out it gets attention. Related to resiliency in meaningful ways were terms brought up by breakout tables that included: sea-level rise, flooding, extreme weather events, erosion, greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, fires, and landslides. Challenges with addressing resiliency include political and polarizing viewpoints of the topic itself, sometimes leading to a lowest- common-denominator. Ancillary Objectives (Equity, Safety, etc.). Standardized approaches and performance metrics for equity are rare and, if they do exist, may not work in a “one-size-fits-all” approach. Housing (including affordable housing relationships to equity), connecting transportation with land use, health-related quality-of-life issues, and getting people (including populations with traditional equity concerns) to participate in public processes that do not have a built-in “axe to grind.” The NARC participants added that funding and policy silos and the lack of federal recognition of Councils of Government in law were barriers to achieving these objectives. Accessibility (and Use) of Resource Tools. At the end of the session, Mr. Lane also asked what the participants would like to see in an online database or tool that can provide them with informa­ tion that can serve as a resource to address these challenges. A couple of participants noted that either a new tool was not necessary and that no tool would obviate the need to conduct a broad (e.g., Google or similar) online search for information pertaining to any of the issues presented. There was a sense that other, existing online resources were not well known to the participants. While not a majority opinion, the need to update the information in any resource tool, as well as coordinating with existing online reference tools, did get agreement from participants. Having more search keys (e.g., “Is the state DOT collaborative or combative” was suggested) would be useful and serve to take the tool’s utility beyond that of traditional search databases.