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.

5   This chapter describes background information relevant to the synthesis scope. It includes an overview of the topic; covers objectives of the synthesis; and describes the project scope and approach, content to be included to address the study scope, and any key issues covered. In addi­ tion, this chapter includes a section that defines terms used throughout the report and explains the organization of the report. Background State departments of transportation (DOTs) are required by federal law (and sometimes state law) to coordinate transportation planning and programming processes with metropolitan plan­ ning organizations (MPOs) in the state. However, the law does not provide specific direction as to how DOTs are to coordinate with MPOs. Anecdotal evidence suggests that DOTs across the country use varying practices, both formal and informal, to coordinate with MPOs to imple­ ment the federally required 3C transportation planning process (continuing, comprehensive, and cooperative). Although coordination often happens organically through less formal struc­ tures, effective coordination also requires an intentional framework for ensuring ongoing and constructive interactions between the two types of organizations. The need for effective coordination has grown over the years as successive federal surface transportation reauthorizations have placed increasing emphasis on this requirement. The newest federal surface transportation reauthorization bill, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, also referred to as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, is no exception and continues the requirement for DOTs to coordinate with MPOs as part of both the statewide and metropolitan transportation planning and programming processes. Synthesis Objectives The objective of this synthesis is to document current DOT strategies and practices to facili­ tate coordination between state DOTs and MPOs. It also documents common challenges and obstacles to coordination. Identification of current practices and examples of common or unique practices will support more robust and effective coordination efforts across the country. Synthesis Scope and Approach This synthesis documents coordination practices between state DOTs and MPOs in the state. Specific topics addressed in this synthesis include the following: • Factors that contribute to effective coordination between states and MPOs, • Common issues or impediments to effective coordination, and C H A P T E R   1 Introduction

6 Practices for Statewide and MPO Coordination • Strategies to facilitate coordination between states and MPOs in transportation planning and programming processes. Key methods for obtaining this information include (1) a review of the literature and agency documents, (2) a scanning survey of state transportation agencies, and (3) interviews and devel­ opment of case examples of coordination practices from selected DOTs. Literature Review A literature review was conducted to document DOT practices for coordinated planning and programming with MPOs. The literature review examined these topics through a review of (1) published research and literature, (2) federal legislation and regulations, and (3) agency guid­ ance documents and internet resources. To identify relevant literature and documents, a search was conducted on the Transportation Research Information Database; internet searches were completed to identify recently published and unpublished literature that includes guidance on this topic. A supplemental search was conducted to find completed research from various sources, including AASHTO, the FHWA, the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, the National Association of Regional Councils, state transportation agencies, and MPO websites. The documents reviewed include the following: • Recent NCHRP synthesis studies and research reports on coordination and other related topics, • Relevant NCHRP planning snapshots, • A 2021 survey on memorandums of understanding with MPOs conducted by the Maine Department of Transportation, • A 2015 transportation research synthesis on coordination between State Transportation Agencies and MPOs in Multi­State Metropolitan Planning Areas by the Minnesota Depart­ ment of Transportation, • Various state manuals and relevant documents, and • Other documents recommended in the project scope. The literature review provides context for this synthesis project, summarizing a combination of recent and older literature and documents on collaboration between transportation agencies and collaborative practices between states and MPOs. The literature review is organized as follows: • Federal legislation on coordination; • State guidance on coordination; • Coordination, collaboration, consultation, and cooperation; • Coordination mechanisms; • Relevant state­led surveys on coordination; • Relevant NCHRP surveys; • Success factors for coordination; • Benefits of coordination; and • Barriers to coordination. Scanning Survey A questionnaire was developed to acquire information on state practices for coordinating with MPOs in the state. Results from the questionnaire are summarized in Chapter 3. A total of 42 DOTs responded to the survey (41 states and the District of Columbia), resulting in an 82% response rate. Jurisdictions representing the DOTs that responded to this questionnaire are shown in Figure 1. The survey and the survey responses are included in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively.

Introduction 7   Case Example Interviews Five state DOTs were selected from the survey respondents for interviews: Arizona, Massachusetts, Ohio, Texas, and Wisconsin. These states were selected based on geographic region (Northeast, Midwest, South, West); number and variety of MPOs in the state; DOT gov­ ernance structures (centralized or decentralized); coordination mechanisms identified as being used by the DOT; and diversity of survey responses for various questions such as those related to statewide associations, state legislation, and types of challenges or barriers. The states with staff participating in the interview are shown in Figure 2. Figure 1. State DOTs that responded to the questionnaire. Figure 2. States interviewed for case examples.

8 Practices for Statewide and MPO Coordination Interviews were designed to expand on survey responses by providing additional context on the coordination mechanisms used, barriers to coordination, and lessons learned when coordi­ nating between the DOT and MPOs in the state. These interviews were used to develop a set of case examples, which are included in Chapter 4. Summary of Findings Key findings of the synthesis were summarized, including observations relative to the state of current practice, gaps in knowledge, and suggestions for additional research. This information is provided in Chapter 5. Report Organization This report is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 provides background information, the synthesis objectives, the synthesis scope and approach, the terminology used in the report, and description of the report organization. Chapter 2 includes the findings from the literature review. Chapter 3 summarizes the survey results. Chapter 4 describes case examples of practices for statewide and MPO coordination. Chapter 5 presents key findings of the synthesis and sugges­ tions for additional research. After the summary of findings, the references section provides a list of the sources consulted for this synthesis report. This report includes three appendices. Appendix A presents the survey questions used for this synthesis, including the background information and survey tips provided to survey respon­ dents. Appendix B includes the survey responses, identifying a list of DOTs that responded to the survey and showing how each DOT respondent answered each question. Appendix C includes additional documents related to coordination between DOTs and MPOs provided by staff of the DOTs interviewed for case examples. Terminology This section explains terminology used in the synthesis that may not be commonly understood. 3C Transportation Planning Process – The continuous, comprehensive, and cooperative transportation planning process that states and local communities are required to participate in according to the Federal Highway Act of 1962. Association of MPOs – A convening body of MPOs serving as a forum for information exchange and collective decision­making on policy and other matters of importance to MPOs and other affected parties. These associations can be regional, statewide, or national. Capacity Building – This term as used for this synthesis refers to capacity building as defined by the FHWA, which refers to training, guidance, and technical support “to help decision makers, transportation officials, and staff resolve the increasingly complex issues they face when address­ ing transportation needs in their communities” (FHWA, n.d.). Centralized DOT Governance Structure – Agency functions and decisions are carried out by staff located at a single office in the state, often referred to as headquarters. Comprehensive – Complete; having all needed components or elements. Consultation – One or more parties confer with other identified parties in accordance with an established process and, prior to taking action(s), considers the views of the other parties and periodically informs them about action(s) taken (23 CFR Part 450, Subpart A, 2017). Continuous – Ongoing; without interruption.

Introduction 9   Cooperative (cooperation) – The parties involved in carrying out the transportation plan­ ning and programming processes work together to achieve a common goal or objective (23 CFR Part 450, Subpart A, 2017). Coordination – The cooperative development of plans, programs, and schedules among agencies and entities with legal standing and adjustment of such plans, programs, and schedules to achieve general consistency, as appropriate (23 CFR Part 450, Subpart A, 2017). Congestion Management Process (CMP) – A systematic and regionally­accepted approach for managing congestion that provides accurate, up­to­date information on transportation system performance and assesses alternative strategies for congestion management that meet state and local needs (FHWA 2022). Decentralized DOT Governance Structure – A range of agency functions and decisions are carried out by staff at offices across the state, sometimes referred to by various terms including district, regional, satellite, etc. Lead agency (as it relates to DOTs and multi-state MPOs) – The DOT that has primary oversight responsibilities for the multi­state MPO. Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) – An organization that identi­ fies local transportation needs, conducts planning, assists local governments, and supports the statewide transportation planning process in nonmetropolitan regions of a state (FHWA and FTA n.d.). Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) – A staged, multi­year (at least four years), statewide intermodal program of transportation projects, consistent with the state­ wide transportation plan and planning processes as well as metropolitan plans, Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs), and planning processes (FTA 2022b). Suballocated Funds – Reservations of funds apportioned to a state by formula for use in specific areas within the state (FHWA 2016). Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) – A list of upcoming transportation projects— covering a period of at least four years as required under 49 U.S.C. 5303(j) (FTA 2022c). TIPs are produced by MPOs and Statewide Transportation Improvement Programs (STIPs) are produced by state DOTs and incorporate MPO TIPs for metropolitan areas of the state. Transportation Management Area (TMA) – An urbanized area with a population over 200,000 (FTA 2022a). Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) – An annual or biennial statement of work iden­ tifying the planning priorities and activities to be carried out within a metropolitan planning area (FTA 2022d).