Practices for Statewide and MPO Coordination (2024)

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.

2024 Practices for Statewide and MPO Coordination A Synthesis of Highway Practice Je Kramer Tia Boyd Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida Tampa, FL Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Ofcials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration Subscriber Categories Highways • Planning and Forecasting • Policy N A T I O N A L C O O P E R A T I V E H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M NCHRP SYNTHESIS 626

Published reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet by going to https://www.mytrb.org/MyTRB/Store/default.aspx Printed in the United States of America NCHRP SYNTHESIS 626 Project 20-05, Topic 54-05 ISSN 0547-5570 ISBN 978-0-309-70964-4 Library of Congress Control Number 2024934153 © 2024 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the graphical logo are trade- marks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, APTA, FAA, FHWA, FTA, GHSA, or NHTSA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; the FHWA; or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board does not develop, issue, or publish standards or spec- ifications. The Transportation Research Board manages applied research projects which provide the scientific foundation that may be used by Transportation Research Board sponsors, industry associations, or other organizations as the basis for revised practices, procedures, or specifications. The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names or logos appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed, and implementable research is the most effective way to solve many problems facing state departments of transportation (DOTs) administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local or regional interest and can best be studied by state DOTs individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transporta- tion results in increasingly complex problems of wide interest to high- way authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 ini- tiated an objective national highway research program using modern scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), United States Department of Transportation, under Agree- ment No. 693JJ31950003. The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was requested by AASHTO to administer the research program because of TRB’s recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research practices. TRB is uniquely suited for this purpose for many reasons: TRB maintains an extensive com- mittee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; TRB possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, state, and local governmental agencies, univer- sities, and industry; TRB’s relationship to the National Academies is an insurance of objectivity; and TRB maintains a full-time staff of special- ists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research directly to those in a position to use them. The program is developed on the basis of research needs iden- tified by chief administrators and other staff of the highway and transportation departments, by committees of AASHTO, and by the FHWA. Topics of the highest merit are selected by the AASHTO Special Committee on Research and Innovation (R&I), and each year R&I’s recommendations are proposed to the AASHTO Board of Direc- tors and the National Academies. Research projects to address these topics are defined by NCHRP, and qualified research agencies are selected from submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Academies and TRB. The needs for highway research are many, and NCHRP can make significant contributions to solving highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement, rather than to substitute for or duplicate, other highway research programs.

e National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. e National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president. e National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. e three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. e National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org. e Transportation Research Board is one of seven major program divisions of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. e mission of the Transportation Research Board is to mobilize expertise, experience, and knowledge to anticipate and solve complex transportation-related challenges. e Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,500 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. e program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP SYNTHESIS 626 Waseem Dekelbab, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs, and Manager, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Trey Joseph Wadsworth, Senior Program Officer Mazen Alsharif, Senior Program Assistant Natalie Barnes, Director of Publications Heather DiAngelis, Associate Director of Publications NCHRP PROJECT 20-05 PANEL Joyce N. Taylor, Maine Department of Transportation, Augusta, ME (Chair) Anita K. Bush, Nevada Department of Transportation, Carson City, NV Joseph D. Crabtree, Kentucky Transportation Center (retired), Lexington, KY Mostafa Jamshidi, Nebraska Department of Transportation, Lincoln, NE Jessie X. Jones, Arkansas Department of Transportation, Little Rock, AR Raymond J. Khoury, Virginia Department of Transportation, Richmond, VA Brenda Moore, North Carolina Department of Transportation (retired), Cary, NC Jesus Alberto Sandoval-Gil, Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix, AZ Cynthia J. Smith, Mississippi Department of Transportation, Jackson, MS Jack D. Jernigan, FHWA Liaison Jim T. McDonnell, AASHTO Liaison Stephen F. Maher, TRB Liaison TOPIC 54-05 PANEL James Garland, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, DC Jessie X. Jones, Arkansas Department of Transportation, Little Rock, AR Jennifer J. Marshall, Congressional Research Service (CRS), Washington, DC Gabe Philips, Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA Anna Pierce, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Moorhead, MN Dean Roberts, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Harrisburg, PA Chandra Inglis-Smith, FHWA Liaison Claire E. Randall, TRB Liaison C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S

ABOUT THE NCHRP SYNTHESIS PROGRAM Highway administrators, engineers, and researchers often face problems for which information already exists, either in documented form or as undocumented experience and practice. This infor- mation may be fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a consequence, full knowledge of what has been learned about a problem may not be brought to bear on its solution. Costly research findings may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked, and due consideration may not be given to recommended practices for solving or alleviating the problem. There is information on nearly every subject of concern to highway administrators and engineers. Much of it derives from research or from the work of practitioners faced with problems in their day- to-day work. To provide a systematic means for assembling and evalu ating such useful information and to make it available to the entire highway community, the American Association of State High- way and Transportation Officials—through the mechanism of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program—authorized the Transportation Research Board to undertake a continuing study. This study, NCHRP Project 20-05, “Synthesis of Information Related to Highway Practices,” searches out and synthesizes useful knowledge from all available sources and prepares concise, documented reports on specific topics. Reports from this endeavor constitute an NCHRP report series, Synthesis of Highway Practice. This synthesis series reports on current knowledge and practice, in a compact format, without the detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Each report in the series provides a compendium of the best knowledge available on those measures found to be the most successful in resolving specific problems. FOREWORD By Trey Joseph Wadsworth Staff Officer Transportation Research Board The objective of this synthesis is to document current state department of transportation practices related to coordinating planning and programming requirements with metropolitan planning organi- zations (MPOs), as well as any common challenges with fulfilling regulatory requirements. Federal transportation legislation requires formalized coordination between state departments of trans- portation (DOTs) and MPOs in transportation planning and programming processes. DOTs have varying practices in implementing the 3C (continuing, comprehensive, and cooperative) planning process with their MPO partners. This synthesis gathered information through a literature review, a survey of DOTs, and follow-up interviews with selected DOTs. Five case examples provide additional information on practices for state DOT and MPO coordination in planning and programming. Jeff Kramer, AICP, and Tia Boyd, AICP, of the Center for Urban Transportation Research at the University of South Florida, collected and synthesized the information and wrote the report. The members of the topic panel are acknowledged on page iv. This synthesis is an immediately useful document that records practices that were acceptable within the limitations of the knowledge available at the time of its preparation.

1 Summary 5 Chapter 1 Introduction 5 Background 5 Synthesis Objectives 5 Synthesis Scope and Approach 8 Report Organization 8 Terminology 10 Chapter 2 Literature Review 10 Federal Legislation and Regulation 12 State Guidance on Coordination 15 Coordination, Collaboration, Consultation, and Cooperation 17 Coordination Mechanisms 19 Relevant State-Led Surveys on Coordination 20 Relevant NCHRP Surveys 22 Success Factors for Coordination 23 Benefits of Coordination 24 Barriers to Coordination 25 Summary of Literature Review Findings 29 Chapter 3 State of the Practice 29 Administration and Oversight 34 State Legislation for Coordination Practices 36 Coordination on Planning, Programming, and Policy 37 Coordination Strategies Between States and MPOs 44 Barriers and Challenges to Coordination 46 Summary of Survey Results 48 Chapter 4 Case Examples 48 Arizona 49 Massachusetts 52 Ohio 54 Texas 57 Wisconsin 60 Chapter 5 Summary of Findings 60 Key Findings 61 Suggestions for Additional Research 63 References 66 Appendix A Survey Questionnaire 79 Appendix B Survey Responses 151 Appendix C Additional Documents C O N T E N T S