Metropolitan Planning Organizations
Options Exist to Enhance Transportation Planning Capacity and Federal Oversight Gao ID: GAO-09-868 September 9, 2009Metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) are responsible for transportation planning in metropolitan areas; however, little is known about what has been achieved by the planning efforts. This congressionally requested report describes (1) the characteristics and responsibilities of MPOs, (2) the challenges that MPOs face in carrying out their responsibilities, (3) how the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) provides oversight for MPOs and the extent to which this improves transportation planning, and (4) the options that have been proposed to enhance transportation planning. To address these objectives, GAO surveyed all 381 MPOs (with an 86 percent response rate) and conducted case studies of eight metropolitan areas and conducted a survey of program managers.
MPOs vary greatly in terms of capacity and responsibilities. Some MPOs are supported by one or two staff, while others have over 100 staff. While half of MPOs represent populations of less than 200,000, some represent millions. MPOs are typically housed within a regional planning council or a city or county government agency, but also may operate as independent agencies. Most MPOs receive the majority of their planning funds from federal sources, but also receive funds from other sources such as states or localities. The technical capacity of MPOs also varies significantly, both in terms of the type of model used to develop travel demand forecasts and the number of staff available to perform such forecasts. Some MPOs have acquired additional responsibilities, such as project implementation, beyond federal requirements. MPOs cited many challenges in our survey and interviews, primarily related to funding and staffing, authority, and technical capacity. About 85 percent of all MPOs responding to our survey cited the lack of transportation planning funding as a challenge to transportation planning. About half of our survey respondents stated that the lack of flexibility for using federal planning funds inhibits them from conducting comprehensive transportation planning. Staffing constraints, such as limited number of staff and lack of trained staff, also impact MPOs' ability to conduct transportation planning. Finally, according to our survey and interviews, some MPOs lack the technical capacity and data necessary to conduct the type of complex transportation modeling required to meet their planning needs. DOT's Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) work together to oversee MPOs, but given the process-oriented approach of the oversight, it is difficult to determine whether their oversight is improving transportation planning. MPOs representing more than 200,000 in population are subject to federal certification reviews. The certification reviews focus on procedural compliance with planning requirements, not transportation outcomes. MPOs generally view this federal process as pro forma in nature and place a greater value on informal assistance provided by both federal and state governments. Several proposals have been developed by government and industry associations that could address some of the resource, authority, and technical challenges facing MPOs. For example, (1) allowing the use of transportation planning funds for more activities could better meet the needs of some metropolitan areas; (2) varying MPOs' planning requirements and authority or changing the legal definition of MPOs could address varying capacity and planning needs; (3) increasing federal investment in modeling and data gathering could improve the technical capability of MPOs and bring a greater degree of reliability and consistency across MPOs to travel demand forecasting; and (4) making the planning process more performance-based could allow FTA and FHWA to better assess MPOs' progress in achieving specific results.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-09-868, Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Options Exist to Enhance Transportation Planning Capacity and Federal Oversight
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-868
entitled 'Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Options Exist to Enhance
Transportation Planning Capacity and Federal Oversight' which was
released on September 9, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Ranking Member, Committee on Environment and Public
Works, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
September 2009:
Metropolitan Planning Organizations:
Options Exist to Enhance Transportation Planning Capacity and Federal
Oversight:
GAO-09-868:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-868, a report to the Ranking Member, Committee on
Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) are responsible for
transportation planning in metropolitan areas; however, little is known
about what has been achieved by the planning efforts. This
congressionally requested report describes (1) the characteristics and
responsibilities of MPOs, (2) the challenges that MPOs face in carrying
out their responsibilities, (3) how the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) provides oversight for MPOs and the extent to
which this improves transportation planning, and (4) the options that
have been proposed to enhance transportation planning. To address these
objectives, GAO surveyed all 381 MPOs (with an 86 percent response
rate) and conducted case studies of eight metropolitan areas and
conducted a survey of program managers.
What GAO Found:
MPOs vary greatly in terms of capacity and responsibilities. Some MPOs
are supported by one or two staff, while others have over 100 staff.
While half of MPOs represent populations of less than 200,000, some
represent millions. MPOs are typically housed within a regional
planning council or a city or county government agency, but also may
operate as independent agencies. Most MPOs receive the majority of
their planning funds from federal sources, but also receive funds from
other sources such as states or localities. The technical capacity of
MPOs also varies significantly, both in terms of the type of model used
to develop travel demand forecasts and the number of staff available to
perform such forecasts. Some MPOs have acquired additional
responsibilities, such as project implementation, beyond federal
requirements.
MPOs cited many challenges in our survey and interviews, primarily
related to funding and staffing, authority, and technical capacity.
About 85 percent of all MPOs responding to our survey cited the lack of
transportation planning funding as a challenge to transportation
planning. About half of our survey respondents stated that the lack of
flexibility for using federal planning funds inhibits them from
conducting comprehensive transportation planning. Staffing constraints,
such as limited number of staff and lack of trained staff, also impact
MPOs‘ ability to conduct transportation planning. Finally, according to
our survey and interviews, some MPOs lack the technical capacity and
data necessary to conduct the type of complex transportation modeling
required to meet their planning needs.
DOT‘s Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) work together to oversee MPOs, but given the
process-oriented approach of the oversight, it is difficult to
determine whether their oversight is improving transportation planning.
MPOs representing more than 200,000 in population are subject to
federal certification reviews. The certification reviews focus on
procedural compliance with planning requirements, not transportation
outcomes. MPOs generally view this federal process as pro forma in
nature and place a greater value on informal assistance provided by
both federal and state governments.
Several proposals have been developed by government and industry
associations that could address some of the resource, authority, and
technical challenges facing MPOs. For example,
* allowing the use of transportation planning funds for more activities
could better meet the needs of some metropolitan areas;
* varying MPOs‘ planning requirements and authority or changing the
legal definition of MPOs could address varying capacity and planning
needs;
* increasing federal investment in modeling and data gathering could
improve the technical capability of MPOs and bring a greater degree of
reliability and consistency across MPOs to travel demand forecasting;
and;
* making the planning process more performance-based could allow FTA
and FHWA to better assess MPOs‘ progress in achieving specific results.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO suggests that Congress consider making MPO transportation planning
more performance based by, for example, identifying specific
transportation outcomes for transportation planning and charging DOT
with assessing MPOs‘ progress in achieving these outcomes in the
certification review process. GAO also recommends, among other things,
that DOT develop a strategy to improve data gathering and modeling at
the MPO level. DOT agreed to consider the report‘s recommendations.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-868] or key
components. For more information, contact Phillip R. Herr at (202) 512-
2834 or herrp@gao.gov. To view the e-supplement online, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-867SP].
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
MPOs Vary Considerably in Terms of Capacity, Responsibilities, and
Range of Activities:
MPOs Face Resource, Authority, and Technical Challenges That Impact
Their Ability to Conduct Transportation Planning:
The Extent to Which MPO Oversight Mechanisms Improve Transportation
Planning Is Unclear:
MPO, Government, and Industry Officials Have Developed Options to
Enhance Transportation Planning:
Conclusions:
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
Recommendations:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Mean and Median Number of Staff at MPOs:
Table 2: Metropolitan Regions Selected for Case Study:
Figures:
Figure 1: Number of MPOs by Population Represented:
Figure 2: Transportation Planning Processes:
Figure 3: Apportionments of FHWA and FTA Metropolitan Planning Funds,
Fiscal Year 1996 through Fiscal Year 2009:
Abbreviations:
3-C: continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive:
AASHTO: American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials:
AMPO: Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations:
APTA: American Public Transportation Association:
CMAQ: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program:
CMP: Congestion Management Process:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration:
FTA: Federal Transit Administration:
MPO: Metropolitan Planning Organization:
SAFETEA-LU: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users:
STIP: Statewide Transportation Improvement Program:
TIP: Transportation Improvement Program:
TMA: Transportation Management Area:
TRB: Transportation Research Board:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 9, 2009:
The Honorable James Inhofe:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Environment and Public Works:
United States Senate:
Dear Senator Inhofe:
Metropolitan areas are the centers of much social and economic activity
in the United States. The largest 100 of these areas house more than 65
percent of our population and produce 75 percent of our national
economic output. They are also where most seaport tonnage arrives and
departs, transit miles are ridden, and rail and air passengers board.
However, the productivity of these economic centers, and as a result
the economic vitality of the United States, is being threatened by a
number of transportation challenges, such as increasing levels of
congestion. These challenges are significantly affected by decisions on
how federal transportation funds are invested and these decisions are
shaped by the transportation planning efforts undertaken by the 381
metropolitan planning organizations (MPO).
To encourage the development of efficient and effective transportation
systems, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962 required urban
transportation planning as a condition for receiving federal-aid
transportation funds in urban areas. The act also provided funding for
regional transportation planning. To reflect the growing sense that
local elected officials and citizens should be given a larger role in
this regional transportation decision-making process, the Federal-Aid
Highway Act of 1973 required the designation of MPOs in urban areas
with populations of more than 50,000 people to carry out a continuing,
cooperative, and comprehensive (3-C) planning process. Recognizing the
importance of metropolitan areas and the need to fully integrate these
areas into transportation investment decisions, the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991[Footnote 1] devolved greater
responsibility for planning and implementation of transportation
projects to MPOs. Subsequently, in 2005, the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU), the current surface transportation program authorization
act, added additional transportation planning requirements to MPOs'
responsibilities, while also providing additional time for MPOs to make
updates to their plans and programs and increasing federal funding to
MPOs to respond to such responsibilities.[Footnote 2] Little is known,
though, about what has been achieved by the federal government's
investment in metropolitan transportation planning. As the September
2009 expiration of SAFETEA-LU approaches, more complete information on
the effectiveness of MPOs' transportation planning activities is
needed, especially in light of government and industry associations'
proposals for increasing or modifying MPOs' authority,
responsibilities, and funding. Accordingly, you asked us to examine (1)
the characteristics and responsibilities of MPOs; (2) the challenges
that MPOs face in carrying out their responsibilities; (3) how the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) provides oversight for MPOs and the
extent to which this improves transportation planning; and (4) the
options that have been proposed to enhance transportation planning.
To address these objectives, we reviewed existing legislation,
regulations, and program guidance concerning MPOs' transportation
planning responsibilities and the federal certification process;
reviewed proposals to change or reform current MPO planning
responsibilities; interviewed Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) officials and representatives
from industry associations such as the Association of Metropolitan
Planning Organizations and the Transportation Research Board (TRB), as
well as state departments of transportation, to obtain their
perspectives on MPOs' planning activities, variations among MPOs, the
federal certification process, and proposals to improve the current
planning process. We also conducted case studies of eight MPOs in four
states that we selected based on population and structure, among other
things, which included reviewing the MPOs' transportation plans and
interviewing MPO officials, the state departments of transportation,
the relevant FHWA division office and FTA regional office, transit
agencies, and other regional associations. In addition, we observed an
FHWA-FTA MPO certification review; and surveyed all 381 legally
designated MPOs to gain information on their varying roles,
responsibilities, capacity, the challenges they face in meeting their
planning responsibilities, and options to improve the transportation
planning process.[Footnote 3] The results of our survey can be found at
GAO-09-867SP. To determine the various options to address MPOs'
challenges, we reviewed proposals from the Association of Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (AMPO), the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO), the American Public
Transportation Association (APTA), the Brookings Institution, the
previous and current DOT administrations, and the June 2009 House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee blueprint for the surface
transportation reauthorization. We also discussed suggestions for
improving the planning process with federal and state officials, as
well as the eight MPOs we interviewed.
For the purposes of this report, we refer to MPOs representing
populations of less than 200,000 as "small MPOs," MPOs representing
populations between 200,000 and 1 million as "medium MPOs," and MPOs
representing populations above 1 million as "large MPOs." Appendix I
contains additional information about our scope and methodology. We
conducted this performance audit from September 2008 to September 2009
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We provided a copy of this report to DOT for their review and comment.
DOT agreed to consider our recommendations and provided technical
comments which we incorporated into the report, as appropriate.
Background:
MPOs, representing local governments and working in coordination with
state departments of transportation and major providers of
transportation services, have responsibility for the regional
transportation planning processes in urbanized areas.[Footnote 4] (See
figure 2 for a summary of these processes.) A core function of MPOs is
to establish and manage a fair and impartial setting for effective
transportation decision making in an urbanized area. To receive federal
transportation funding, any project in an urbanized area must emerge
from the relevant MPO and state department of transportation planning
process. MPOs, which generally have a governing policy board consisting
of local elected officials and appropriate state and public
transportation officials, facilitate decision making on regional
transportation issues including major capital investment projects and
priorities. MPOs also generally have a technical advisory committee
(including engineers, planners, and other local staff); citizen's
advisory committee; and additional committees, such as a bicycle and
pedestrian committee or a freight advisory committee. MPO staff assist
the MPO board by preparing documents, fostering interagency
coordination, facilitating public input and feedback, and managing the
planning process. Staff may also provide committees with technical
assessments and evaluations of proposed transportation initiatives.
Created to carry out a federally mandated transportation planning
process, MPOs' core membership is spelled out in law, but the
organizational structure and staff arrangements were designed to be
determined by agreement between local officials and the state.
The size of the populations represented by individual MPOs varies. For
instance, about 52 percent of the 381 MPOs represent populations of
fewer than 200,000 people; 36 percent of MPOs represent populations of
200,000 to 999,999 people; and 11 percent of MPOs represent populations
of 1 million or more people. However, the largest MPOs--those
representing more than 1 million people--represent about 49 percent of
the country. (See figure 1 for a summary of MPO sizes.)
Figure 1: Number of MPOs by Population Represented:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Small (population of 50,000-199,999) 199 MPOs: 53%;
Medium (population of 200,000-999,999) 139 MPOs: 36%;
Large (population of 1 million and above) 43 MPOs: 11%.
Source: GAO analysis of Census data.
Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.
[End of figure]
All MPOs have the same basic planning requirements. Specifically, all
MPOs are required to produce the following:
* long-range (20-year) transportation plans;[Footnote 5]
* short-range (4-year) Transportation Improvement Programs;
* annual statements of planning priorities and activities (generally
called a Unified Planning Work Program or UPWP); and:
* public participation plans.[Footnote 6]
Transportation improvement programs (TIP), based on the long-range
plan, should be designed to achieve the area's transportation goals
using spending, operating, management, and financial tools. The area's
transportation goals are determined by the MPO's policy board,
including representatives from relevant jurisdictions and
transportation operators, through interactions between stakeholders and
the public for the purpose of identifying visions for the community's
future. This process allows the region as a whole to determine how it
should allocate its limited transportation resources among the various
capital and operating needs of the area, based on local and regional
priorities. Both the TIP and the long-range plan must be fiscally
constrained--that is, the total estimated cost of the planned
transportation improvements cannot exceed anticipated levels of
funding.[Footnote 7] MPOs must develop these plans and programs in
cooperation with their state department of transportation as well as
local transit operators, land-use entities, and environmental resource
agencies.[Footnote 8] Where they exist in their region, MPOs also
consult with tribal governments, airports, Amtrak, or freight rail
interests during the planning process. (See figure 2 for a summary of
the role of the MPO, state, and federal government in developing the
long-range plan and TIP.)
Figure 2: Transportation Planning Processes:
[See PDF for image: illustration]
Short-range programs[A]:
* Plan time frame: at least 4 years;
* Updated at least every 4 years.
Metropolitan planning:
Metropolitan transportation improvement program (TIP):
* Identifies proposed federally supported transportation projects or
phases of a project;
* Financially constrained–includes a financial plan to demonstrate
current and proposed revenue sources;
* Identifies the criteria and process for prioritizing implementation
of transportation plan elements;
* MPOs and states approve the program.
Statewide planning:
State transportation improvement program (STIP):
* Covers the MPO regions and all other state areas;
* Contains descriptions of all capital and noncapital transportation
projects, with some exceptions;
* Financially constrained–demonstrates current and proposed federal,
state, and local revenue sources.
Federal Highway Administration/Federal Transit Administration:
STIP approval:
* Requires joint approval by FHWA/FTA at least once every 4 years;
* Certifies that the transportation planning process is carried out in
accordance with applicable federal requirements;
* MPO self-certification with each submission of the proposed TIP to
FHWA/FTA as part of the STIP approval, at least once every 4 years.
Long-range plans[B]:
* Plan time frame: at least 20 years;
* Updated every 4 years (MPOs) or as appropriate (states).
Metropolitan planning:
Metropolitan long-range transportation plan:
* Identifies projected transportation demand and congestion management
strategies;
* Assesses capital investments and the existing transportation system;
* Reflects social, economic, environmental, and energy conservation
goals and objectives;
* Includes a financial plan to demonstrate revenue sources for
transportation investments.
Statewide planning:
Statewide long-range transportation plan:
* Intermodal and statewide in scope;
* Coordination with metropolitan long-range plans;
* References planning studies and reports significant to the
development of the plan;
* Summarizes availability of financial and other resources needed to
carry out the plan (optional).
Federal Highway Administration/Federal Transit Administration:
MPO and state planning process certification:
* State shall certify that the planning process is being carried out in
accordance with all applicable requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135 at
the time the entire proposed STIP is submitted to FHWA/FTA for
approval, at least every 4 years;
* FHWA/FTA conducts certification reviews for all MPOs representing
populations greater than 200,000 to ensure that the planning process is
conducted in accordance with applicable federal requirements.
Source: GAO analysis of federal regulations governing metropolitan and
statewide transportation planning.
[A] Short-range programs, called Transportation Improvement Programs,
are based on the long-range plan and are required to achieve the area's
transportation goals using spending, operating, management, and
financial tools.
[B] Long-range plans, generally called Metropolitan Transportation
Plans, are intended to foster mobility and access for people and goods,
efficient transportation system performance and preservation, and good
quality of life.
[C] MPOs are required to review and update the transportation plan at
least every 4 years in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas
and at least every 5 years in attainment areas. An air quality
nonattainment area is a region that the Environmental Protection Agency
has designated as not meeting federal air quality standards. An air
quality maintenance area is a region previously designated
nonattainment.
[End of figure]
Beyond the requirements common to all MPOs, some MPOs have additional
planning requirements. For example, MPOs serving urbanized areas with
populations of over 200,000 people, which are referred to as
transportation management areas (TMA), are required to develop a
Congestion Management Process (CMP) that identifies actions and
strategies to reduce congestion.[Footnote 9] In addition, MPOs
containing areas that do not conform to federal air quality standards
(i.e., nonattainment areas) or areas that have recently come into
conformance with the standards (i.e., maintenance areas) are required
to ensure that planned transportation improvements will not cause new
air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely
attainment of the standards. To ensure that such plans will not
negatively affect regional air quality, MPOs must conduct what is
termed "conformity analysis" for proposed transportation improvements.
[Footnote 10]
To create these transportation plans and programs, MPOs consider a
variety of factors, including local travel forecasts and federal
considerations. For example, MPOs forecast future travel with the
assistance of computerized travel-demand models. These models provide
information on how urban growth and proposed facility and operational
investments will affect the operation of the transportation system.
Such models are complex and require as inputs extensive current
information on roadway and transit system characteristics and
operations, as well as current and forecast demographic information.
Creating and operating the models requires a high degree of technical
training and expertise. Additionally, when developing these plans and
programs, MPOs must consider specific statutorily defined planning
factors. These factors require that the metropolitan planning process
provide for consideration of projects and strategies that will:
* support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by
enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency;
* increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and
nonmotorized users;
* increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and
nonmotorized users;
* increase the accessibility and mobility of people and freight;
* protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation,
improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between
transportation improvements and state and local planned growth and
economic development patterns;
* enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation
system, across and between modes, for people and freight;
* promote efficient system management and operation; and:
* emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.
To carry out this regional planning process, 1.25 percent of federal-
aid highway funding from the Interstate Maintenance, National Highway
System, Bridge, Surface Transportation Program, and Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) programs is apportioned to the states
as metropolitan planning funds.
Federal legislation has maintained, and periodically increased, the
funding for MPO activities over time. (See figure 3.) These federal
funds are distributed to states based on population. Generally states
then provide each of their MPOs with baseline funding and distribute
any remaining balance according to a formula. While the states can use
a range of factors in their formulas, such as congestion levels, they
are required to take population into account. Federal planning dollars
must also be matched by state and local governments. Specifically,
state and local governments must provide at least 20 percent of
metropolitan planning funds, although some state and local governments
have to provide more than 20 percent in funding to perform all of their
necessary planning activities.
Figure 3: Apportionments of FHWA and FTA Metropolitan Planning Funds,
Fiscal Year 1996 through Fiscal Year 2009:
[See PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Fiscal year: 1996;
FHWA: $136.8 million;
FTA: $39.5 million.
Fiscal year: 1997;
FHWA: $157.1 million;
FTA: $40.2 million.
Fiscal year: 1998;
FHWA: $162.3 million;
FTA: $39.6 million.
Fiscal year: 1999;
FHWA: $162.3 million;
FTA: $43.9 million.
Fiscal year: 2000;
FHWA: $188.8 million;
FTA: $49.6 million.
Fiscal year: 2001;
FHWA: $192.5 million;
FTA: $52.3 million.
Fiscal year: 2002;
FHWA: $195.5 million;
FTA: $55.7 million.
Fiscal year: 2003;
FHWA: $194.8 million;
FTA: $60.4 million.
Fiscal year: 2004;
FHWA: $238.6 million;
FTA: $61.5 million.
Fiscal year: 2005;
FHWA: $293.9 million;
FTA: $60.6 million.
Fiscal year: 2006;
FHWA: $289.8 million;
FTA: $77.4 million.
Fiscal year: 2007;
FHWA: $294.5 million;
FTA: $82.4 million.
Fiscal year: 2008;
FHWA: $299.2 million;
FTA: $88.2 million.
Fiscal year: 2009;
FHWA: $303.9 million;
FTA: $93.6 million.
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation.
[End of figure]
Federal and state governments oversee this regional planning process.
At the federal level, FTA and FHWA work together to perform federal
certification reviews--certifying that each TMA has carried out its
planning according to the applicable federal statutes. More
specifically, the certification review requires that the federal
government assess TMAs every 4 years to determine how well they are
working with the transportation-related organizations, local
governments, public transportation operators, and citizens in their
area, as well as with the state departments of transportation, to meet
the many statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to the
planning process. Additionally, the certification review assesses the
quality of the required planning documents. The certification review
includes a desk review of the MPO's plans and a site visit, among other
things. Additionally, all MPOs, including both TMAs and non-TMAs, must
also self-certify that their planning process meets the federal
requirements. States also participate in the regional planning process
by, for example, reviewing and approving the MPO's TIP. If the state
approves the TIP, the state must incorporate the TIP, without change,
into the statewide transportation improvement program (STIP).[Footnote
11] If the state does not approve the TIP, the MPO and the projects
included in the TIP are not eligible for federal funding. This
requirement compels states to coordinate with MPOs and vice versa.
MPOs Vary Considerably in Terms of Capacity, Responsibilities, and
Range of Activities:
The Staffing, Financial, and Technical Capacity of MPOs Varies
Significantly:
The staff size and structure of MPOs vary significantly. Some MPOs are
supported by one or two staff, while a few have over 100 full or part-
time staff. Most MPOs have a relatively small staff, with a median of
four full-time staff per MPO, based on our survey. (See table 1 for a
summary of the number of staff by size of MPO.) The type and structure
of the organizations housing MPOs also vary across the country. The
structure of an MPO is determined by agreement between relevant local
governments and the state, and therefore the extent to which these
local governments or other regional organizations support MPO
activities varies. These organizations can support MPOs by housing
staff within their organization, which can include providing the
personnel and facilities necessary for MPO activities. Some MPOs are
housed and staffed by a local jurisdiction (such as a city or county
government) within its boundaries, others by a regional planning
council, and still others operate independently. According to our
survey respondents, 71 percent of MPOs are a part of agencies such as
regional councils and city, county, or state governments. Eighteen
percent of MPOs report that they operate independently.[Footnote 12]
Table 1: Mean and Median Number of Staff at MPOs:
MPO size: Small (population of less than 200,000);
Mean number of full-time staff: 3.19;
Mean number of part-time staff: 1.43;
Median number of full-time staff: 2.00;
Median number of part-time staff: 1.00.
MPO size: Medium (population of 200,000-999,999);
Mean number of full-time staff: 8.19;
Mean number of part-time staff: 1.50;
Median number of full-time staff: 7.00;
Median number of part-time staff: 1.00.
MPO size: Large (population of 1 million and above);
Mean number of full-time staff: 49.27;
Mean number of part-time staff: 3.90;
Median number of full-time staff: 31.00;
Median number of part-time staff: 1.00.
MPO size: All MPOs;
Mean number of full-time staff: 10.96;
Mean number of part-time staff: 1.77;
Median number of full-time staff: 4.00;
Median number of part-time staff: 1.00.
Source: GAO analysis of MPO survey responses.
[End of table]
Beyond their staff and structure, MPOs also vary in terms of their
funding sources and amounts. Federal planning funds--FHWA PL funds and
FTA Section 5303 funds--generally make up a large portion of the MPO
budget for conducting necessary studies and developing transportation
plans, programs, and other documents. According to our survey
respondents, about 80 percent of MPOs receive a majority of their
planning funds from these federal sources. The amount of matching funds
provided by state and local sources also varies considerably by MPO.
For example, officials from one state department of transportation we
spoke to said that the small MPOs receive considerably more than the
required 20 percent of state and local matching funds for
transportation planning. Officials from another state told us that
although they only receive the required 20 percent match, they also
provide technical support to some MPOs. In addition to federal planning
funds and the required state and local match, some MPOs receive and use
other funds, such as dedicated local taxes and transit fare box
revenue. Finally, according to FTA, while most federal transit funds
designated for urban areas are apportioned directly from FTA to the
transit operator, some funds are apportioned to MPOs, which then
allocate those funds themselves.[Footnote 13]
The technical capacity of MPOs to develop travel demand forecasts--a
crucial component of the long-range plans--also varies. Some MPOs--
about 45 percent of all our survey respondents--use their own models to
develop most, if not all, of their forecasts, while 51 percent rely on
consultants or their state department of transportation to conduct
their modeling. Small MPOs are less likely to conduct their own travel
demand forecasts, with only 30 percent reporting that they have their
own modeling, according to our survey. Further, the federal government
gives local transportation planning agencies, including MPOs, the
flexibility to choose their own transportation models without being
subject to minimum standards or guidelines. As a result, the type of
model used by MPOs also varies. Of the MPOs that reported in our survey
that they use a model to conduct their travel demand forecasts, a large
majority said that they use a four-step model, which uses survey and
other data to estimate future trips and assign those trips to different
modes. Seven survey respondents indicated that they use activity-based
models, which are tied more closely to household and traveler
characteristics and behavior and therefore should, in concept, permit
MPOs to address policy questions that cannot be treated with the
conventional four-step models. For example, four-step models are not
suited to estimating the emissions effects of small transportation
projects or linking these effects to air quality; more advanced
modeling techniques, such as activity-based models, are needed to
estimate such effects. The Transportation Research Board (TRB) also
noted that although the four-step process is common, there are
considerable variations in the completeness and complexity of the
models and data employed.[Footnote 14] Further, they reported that MPOs
vary significantly in the number of staff devoted to travel
forecasting.
The Responsibilities and Activities of Some MPOs Have Expanded beyond
Transportation Planning:
Through our survey and interviews, we also found that many MPOs have
additional responsibilities that are not federally required, many of
which extend beyond transportation planning. For some MPOs, these
additional responsibilities and activities are required by their state,
while other MPOs have taken on these responsibilities over time, based
on regional needs.
* Land-use planning. According to our survey respondents, many MPOs
conduct all or a portion of their region's land-use planning, and for
some this is a state requirement. Specifically, 70 percent of MPOs have
some land-use planning responsibilities, with the larger MPOs generally
reporting that they have more of these planning responsibilities than
small MPOs. Eleven percent of survey respondents specifically said that
their land-use responsibilities are required by their state. In
practice, some MPOs integrate land-use planning into their
transportation planning process by considering potential land-use
scenarios along with proposed projects. Some MPOs have also led public
processes to develop an integrated transportation and land-use "vision"
for a region and to evaluate future transportation and land-use
scenarios. Similarly, for a number of MPOs, various forms of land-use
models are now part of the process for analyzing the growth of the
region and studying the land-use impacts of alternative transportation
investment programs. Generally, though, MPOs do not have authority to
make land-use decisions. Rather, local jurisdictions typically have the
authority to make such zoning and other decisions.
* Project selection. By determining which projects are to be included
in TIPs, all MPOs have a role in determining which projects will
ultimately be funded. However, only certain MPOs have the authority to
select--from a list of projects in an approved TIP--which projects are
to be implemented in the most immediate time frame, using federal funds
available to a metropolitan planning area. In areas designated as TMAs,
the MPO, in consultation with the state and public transportation
operators, selects from an approved TIP all projects that are to be
implemented using funding under Title 23 or under Chapter 53 of Title
49 of the U.S. Code (excluding projects on the National Highway System
and projects funded under the Bridge, Interstate Maintenance, and
Federal Lands Highway programs). Furthermore, MPOs in air quality
nonattainment areas also have the ability to use CMAQ funds.[Footnote
15] Additionally, in California, regional organizations have project
selection authority for 75 percent of their region's portion of the
state's TIP funds (which includes both federal and state highway
money).
* Project implementation. Some MPOs also have the responsibility for
implementing transportation projects. Generally, MPOs do not take the
lead in implementing transportation projects; rather, they play a
coordinating role in planning and programming funds for projects and
operations. Usually, local jurisdictions, transit operators, or state
governments take the lead in implementing projects. However, 37 percent
of survey respondents--representing MPOs of all sizes--said that they
implement projects. For example, one large MPO we spoke with utilizes
its local, state, and federal funds to implement projects by leveraging
this money with regional partners to construct large-scale
transportation projects. Toward this end, the MPO established a program
aimed at quickly reducing congestion in particular areas. This
initiative uses small-scale projects, such as traffic signal
optimization, for congested corridors--which can be implemented within
2 years and are largely funded and carried out by the MPO.
* Transit operations. Sixteen percent of MPOs responded in our survey
that they have some responsibility for operating all or a portion of
their regional transit system. For example, one western MPO is both the
transit authority--providing mass transit that connects throughout the
region--and the transportation-planning agency for the greater
metropolitan area. Another MPO noted in our survey that rather than
operating the transit system, it serves as the planning staff for both
the region's MPO and the transit agency.
* Environmental planning. Twenty-one percent of MPOs responding to our
survey said that they conduct air quality or emissions analysis, beyond
the federally required conformity process. Further, 32 percent of MPOs
responding to our survey said that they conduct additional
environmental or water quality planning. For example, one state we
visited requires its MPOs to consider how their long-range
transportation plan increases water and energy conservation and
efficiency.
MPOs Face Resource, Authority, and Technical Challenges That Impact
Their Ability to Conduct Transportation Planning:
MPOs Report Funding and Staffing Limitations:
MPOs we surveyed and interviewed cited several funding challenges that
impact their ability to conduct transportation planning. About 85
percent of all MPOs responding to our survey cited the lack of
transportation planning funding as a challenge to transportation
planning.[Footnote 16] MPOs we surveyed and interviewed also cited
challenges related to the lack of flexibility of transportation
planning funds. Specifically, about half of all MPOs responding to our
survey cited the lack of flexibility of funding as a challenge. While
FTA allows planning funds to be used for a broad range of planning
activities, FHWA is more prescriptive in how planning funds can be
spent. For example, FHWA guidance precludes using planning funds for
projects' environmental analyses that definitively go beyond
transportation planning.[Footnote 17] Furthermore, officials at a few
MPOs we spoke with stated that it is unclear which activities can be
undertaken with planning funds, particularly in terms of the FHWA
planning funds, and that such definitions inhibit them from conducting
comprehensive planning by not allowing them to use transportation
planning dollars for other uses where necessary. DOT officials we spoke
with agreed that the eligibility for FHWA planning funds is fairly
narrow, but noted that Surface Transportation Program funds can be used
for metropolitan planning and are more flexible.
MPOs also cited a few other funding-related challenges. First, many
MPOs reported having difficulty securing local matching funds for
federal transportation planning dollars. About 66 percent of survey
respondents overall cited this as a challenge. For example, one MPO we
spoke with has been unable to utilize all of the federal planning funds
it has been allocated because the MPO cannot meet its local matching
requirements. As a result, the MPO has not been able to hire needed
staff. Second, MPOs also had mixed opinions regarding the fiscal
constraint requirement--that MPOs develop plans that correspond to
reliable revenue projections. About 84 percent of survey respondents
cited the fiscal constraint requirement as a challenge. One MPO
official told us that this is a challenge because the MPO has to submit
its TIP without full knowledge of the state's available funding; this
makes creating a realistic fiscally constrained TIP difficult. A
previous GAO report found similar concerns. In particular, for MPOs in
some urban areas, financially constraining the transportation
improvement program meant abandoning proposed projects because of a
lack of projected revenue.[Footnote 18] Although developing a fiscally
constrained plan can be difficult, we have also previously reported
that the fiscal constraint requirement has been largely beneficial to
the planning process because it has led MPOs to obtain more reliable
revenue projections from state departments of transportation and
transit agencies and to exclude those projects that could not be
financed within budget constraints. Third, beyond funding challenges
related to planning, officials at a few small MPOs we spoke with often
stated that their region had insufficient funding to keep pace with the
transportation projects needed. In fact, at one small MPO, an official
estimated that the region received about 10 percent of the funding
needed to construct necessary projects. This lack of funding could
potentially limit the effectiveness of MPO planning because fewer
projects from the TIP can be implemented.
MPOs also cited staffing constraints, to a lesser extent, as a
challenge that impacts their ability to conduct transportation
planning. Some MPOs stated that staffing affects their ability to
fulfill its planning requirements. For example, one small MPO told us
that with only one or two staff members, it is very difficult to
satisfy all the federal requirements for MPOs such as creating and
updating the TIP and long-range plan and holding public meetings. MPOs
also mentioned a lack of trained staff as a challenge to transportation
planning. About half of the survey respondents cited lack of trained
staff as a challenge in carrying out the federal requirements for
transportation planning. Lack of trained staff is also a challenge for
small MPOs, according to our survey. For example, officials from
several MPOs stated that retaining staff trained to conduct the travel
forecasting is difficult because there are few people with the
expertise to conduct such technical analyses and consulting firms can
often pay modelers a higher salary than an MPO. In addition, officials
from one MPO told us that the challenges of having limited staff
resources is compounded by requirements to ensure public participation,
noting that much of their time is spent carrying out the public
participation requirements for the planning process relative to other
activities. Concerns about meeting the public participation
requirements were consistent across most of the MPOs we surveyed. In
particular, 79 percent of survey respondents stated that they have
difficulty obtaining the public participation needed to meet their
transportation planning requirements. A few MPOs we interviewed stated
that it was difficult to generate public participation in the planning
process, in part because few people actually understand what an MPO is
or what it does.
Most MPOs function as part of another planning or governing body, such
as a council of governments. According to a few MPOs we interviewed,
this arrangement can address staffing and funding limitations by
allowing an MPO the ability to cut costs by sharing resources such as a
space in which to operate and, in some cases, facilitates coordination
between the MPO and other planners or transportation stakeholders.
However, this arrangement can also create some challenges. In
particular, a few MPOs housed within city governments or other entities
connected with a specific jurisdiction said that this arrangement
causes them to be viewed as less impartial than MPOs that are stand-
alone entities, and that these perceptions can affect their consensus-
building efforts. Additionally, 71 percent of small MPO survey
respondents cited competing priorities between transportation planning
and other tasks related to the council of governments as a challenge.
Most MPOs Report That Limitations to Their Authority Presents
Challenges:
MPOs we surveyed and interviewed also cited the lack of authority as a
challenge to effective transportation planning. About 80 percent of all
MPOs responding to our survey indicated that the lack of authority to
implement the plans they develop is a challenge. The majority of MPOs
that responded to our survey do not implement any of the projects
contained in the plans that they create. Rather, they rely on other
agents such as cities, counties, and state departments of
transportation to carry out their plans. Similarly, although many
survey respondents reported that they conduct land-use planning for
their region, MPOs generally lack the authority to make land-use
decisions. Instead, this authority generally rests with state and local
jurisdictions. As a result, MPOs indicated that they have difficulty
anticipating and integrating land-use decisions into their
transportation planning.[Footnote 19] For example, in one region we
visited, local jurisdictions are often reluctant to make land-use
planning decisions in-line with the MPO's regional transportation plan.
In part, the official stated that this occurs because local
jurisdictions have a difficult time making land-use decisions that
benefit the region as a whole as opposed to their individual community.
If land-use decisions do not correspond with an MPO's plans, the MPO's
proposed transportation improvements may not be as effective. Our past
work has documented that integrating land-use and transportation
investments--including accurately modeling future land-use changes--is
important but challenging.[Footnote 20]
MPOs we interviewed also cited their lack of authority in determining
which projects will be implemented as a challenge. Although MPOs help
determine which projects are eligible for funding and which ones have
priority through the development of the TIP, whether a project will be
funded and the amount of funds made available for the project are
determined by federal, state, and local policymakers. Moreover,
according to our survey, the availability of funding and public support
are more important drivers of transportation investment decisions than
the analysis conducted by MPOs. This is consistent with our previous
work regarding transportation decision making, which indicated that
even when economic analyses are performed, the results are not
necessarily the most important factor considered in terms of which
projects to fund; rather, a number of factors, such as public support
or the availability of funding, drive transportation investment
decisions.[Footnote 21]
Although MPOs in the survey cited lack of authority as a challenge, the
MPOs we interviewed had mixed opinions regarding the extent to which
they felt being granted additional authority would improve
transportation planning. Some of the MPOs we spoke with emphasized that
having project implementation and land-use decision-making authority
would improve transportation planning. For example, one large MPO told
us that although they have developed a close working relationship over
the years with transit operators and other transportation stakeholders
to make their planning processes successful, they need land-use
authority to more comprehensively address critical transportation
issues. Another MPO we interviewed, however, suggested that giving MPOs
project implementation or land-use authority may not improve
transportation planning. Specifically, one MPO official stated that
such additional authorities may actually hamper MPOs' ability to
conduct transportation planning, since some of their current ability to
generate consensus results from the fact that they do not have a stake
in building or operating the transportation plans.
Lack of Technical Capacity Makes It Difficult for MPOs to Meet
Increasingly Complex Requirements:
MPOs also face technical challenges, in part because the travel demand
modeling required to forecast future growth and needs has become more
complicated. MPOs today face a much broader and more complex set of
requirements and needs in their travel modeling than they did in the
1960s and 1970s, when the primary concern was evaluating highway and
transit system capacity expansions.[Footnote 22] New requirements--
such as determining motor vehicle emissions and changes in land use--
have created additional data needs to account for the increasing
complexity of the transportation system. For example, about half of our
survey respondents indicated that their MPOs include a nonattainment or
maintenance area and, thus, are required to conduct air quality
conformity analyses. An even larger percentage of medium-and large-
sized MPOs--66 percent and 76 percent, respectively--indicated that
they have such areas within their MPO boundaries. As planning
organizations, much of the value of MPOs lies in their ability to
forecast and analyze an increasingly complex and growing set of
transportation needs. If MPOs' technical capabilities cannot account
for the increasing complexities facing regional transportation systems,
MPOs' contributions to transportation planning may be compromised,
which could lead to planning failures and poor investment decisions.
Although some MPOs are taking steps to meet the challenges presented by
the increasing complexity of the transportation system, MPOs still face
modeling challenges. About half of MPOs report that they face
challenges related to their limited modeling capacity. Some MPOs have
had success updating their travel forecasting techniques to accommodate
new requirements. For example, officials at one MPO told us the transit
agency in their region is developing a travel demand model specifically
for transit, though it has not yet been incorporated into the MPO's
travel models. Some MPOs we interviewed, however, told us that they
lack the resources to improve their modeling capabilities. In fact, MPO
officials expressed concern in interviews that current models,
including the four-step models most MPOs use, do not necessarily
produce forecasts that can adequately account for the increasing
complexities of transportation planning, such as predicting future land-
use patterns and transit's effect on travel behavior. TRB also found
similar challenges--that is, they found inherent weaknesses in current
models that are generally unable to address new policy concerns raised
by the growing complexity of the transportation system. TRB notes that
when the detail required to address a transportation issue increases,
the complexity of the analytical techniques should increase as well.
For example, a small metropolitan area experiencing minimal growth,
with little transit and no air quality problems, will likely be able to
use a simple model to determine the area's needs. Thus no single
approach is appropriate for all MPOs.
Although modeling presents challenges, according to our survey, the
most predominant technical challenge was related to acquiring quality
data to use in planning models. Over 70 percent of survey respondents
cited data limitations as a challenge. Data reflecting current travel
patterns in a metropolitan area are important because models that are
supplied with inaccurate or out-of-date data may produce inadequate
forecasts that contribute to poor planning. In addition, having robust
data to support proposed transportation plans helps to keep planning
more objective and lends credibility to the plans developed by MPOs.
However, conducting a household travel survey--a survey of random
households in a metropolitan area that gathers trip-related data, such
as mode of transportation, duration, distance and purpose of trip--to
collect updated data is both expensive and time-consuming.[Footnote 23]
For example, officials at one large MPO we interviewed stated that they
need to update their household survey but are having difficulty finding
the estimated $1.5 million needed to do so. As we mentioned earlier,
funding shortages and the lack of staff trained with such technical
expertise make increasing technical capacity a challenge for many MPOs,
particularly small ones. TRB's study also found that many MPOs had
inadequate data to support their modeling processes.
The Extent to Which MPO Oversight Mechanisms Improve Transportation
Planning Is Unclear:
The federal certification review is an important mechanism that FTA and
FHWA use to oversee the MPO planning process. Although all MPOs are
required to self-certify that they have met the federal transportation
planning requirements, SAFETEA-LU also requires DOT to certify the
metropolitan planning process of the 155 TMAs every 4 years.[Footnote
24] To conduct a certification review, FTA and FHWA assemble a team
which typically consists of FTA and FHWA field staff, but may also
include FHWA or FTA headquarters community planners, EPA officials,
other subject matter experts, or experts from DOT's Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center. FHWA division office personnel generally
take the lead in these reviews, which typically take 6 to 9 months and
include (1) an initial desk review, which includes verifying compliance
with basic regulatory requirements, among other things; (2) an
evaluation of the MPO's written response to a series of questions; (3)
a 2 to 4 day site visit during which the team gathers additional
information; and (4) a meeting to inform the public about planning
requirements and provide an opportunity for the public to express
concerns about how the process is meeting the needs of the area. After
the site visit, the team prepares a final report including review
findings and recommendations, which incorporates public comments on the
planning process.
Consistent with federal law, the federal certification review is
process-oriented and conducted without regard to transportation
planning outcomes. Specifically, through certification reviews, DOT
ensures that the metropolitan planning process of an MPO serving a TMA
is carried out in accordance with applicable provisions of federal law-
-for example, by ascertaining whether or not the MPO has adhered to its
public participation plan. Oversight also provides a mechanism through
which the federal government can ensure that its funds are being used
to achieve its intended goals. The current process-oriented approach
toward certification generally focuses on procedural requirements as
opposed to performance. FTA and FHWA can withhold apportioned federal
highway and transit funds if they determine an MPO is in noncompliance
with federal requirements. However, FTA and FHWA officials were unaware
of any instance in which an MPO was not certified due to noncompliance
during the last 10 years. Furthermore, FTA and FHWA officials noted
that the process is meant to be collaborative in nature. Therefore, a
finding of noncompliance is as much of a failure on the part of DOT as
the MPO, according to a DOT official.
Because the federal certification is focused on compliance, not
outcomes, it is difficult to determine whether federal oversight is
improving transportation planning. GAO has previously recommended
[Footnote 25] to DOT, as well as to Congress, that adopting performance
measures and goals for programs can aid in evaluating and measuring the
success of the programs, which can lead to better decisions about
transportation investments.[Footnote 26] The procedural focus of the
federal certification, and the fact that, according to DOT officials'
knowledge, no MPO has failed to be certified as a result of a
certification review also makes it difficult to use the certification
results as a performance indicator for MPOs. According to FHWA and FTA
officials, certification reviews examine the quality of the MPO
planning process by, for example, identifying corrective actions where
there is noncompliance with statute or regulations and recommendations
for areas needing improvement. Corrective actions are set with
milestone dates to rectify the noncompliance and require a status
report and re-evaluation of the process. Commendations for the use of
noteworthy practices are also identified. However, FTA and FHWA do not
assess the progress of the MPO in achieving the goals outlined in the
plans. According to FTA and FHWA officials, states may, but are not
required to, monitor the progress of MPOs in meeting their goals.
Furthermore, an FHWA official noted that the elements that are reviewed
through certification serve as proxies for good planning--for example,
the resulting plans will be better if the MPO is regularly soliciting
and incorporating public input.
Most MPOs we interviewed generally view the federal certification
reviews as pro forma in nature and place a greater value on informal
assistance from the federal government. Officials in one state said
that the most important oversight is the "give and take" between
agencies on the various transportation plans they create. This informal
interaction allows the oversight agencies to identify issues prior to
the formal reviews. Likewise, many federal officials with whom we spoke
view informal interactions--such as regular meetings, technical
assistance, and review of air quality conformity analyses--as an
important aspect of oversight. One FHWA division official we
interviewed stated that the benefit of ongoing communication is that
problems are identified as they arise and can be addressed well before
the certification review or self certification is conducted.
MPOs also reported that the assistance provided by their states is more
important than the federal certification reviews. Although the level of
participation of states in the planning process varies, MPOs reported
in our survey that state department of transportation officials
generally play a greater oversight role than DOT for certain
activities. For example, around 80 percent of survey respondents
reported that state department of transportation officials are involved
in MPO boards and committees, while over 55 percent and 70 percent
reported similar participation from federal officials on MPO boards and
committees, respectively. This may be due, in part, to the limited
number of staff at FHWA and FTA.
MPO, Government, and Industry Officials Have Developed Options to
Enhance Transportation Planning:
With the pending expiration of the current surface transportation
authorizing legislation, MPO, government, and industry officials have
developed various formal and informal proposals to improve or change
the current transportation planning process. We reviewed proposals from
AMPO, AASHTO, APTA, the Brookings Institution, the previous and current
DOT administrations, and the June 2009 House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee blueprint for the surface transportation
reauthorization. We also discussed suggestions for improving
transportation planning with MPO, federal, and state officials. In
reviewing these proposals or suggestions, we identified several
recurring changes, or options, that could address some of the resource,
authority, and technical challenges facing MPOs. Most of the options
have both advantages and disadvantages, and implementing any of the
options will require policy trade-offs.
Increasing Flexibility in Use of Federal Funds:
Creating an expanded or clarified definition of eligibility for the use
of transportation planning funds could allow MPOs to utilize planning
funds in ways that best meet the needs of the area. Most of the MPOs we
surveyed and many of the MPOs we interviewed suggested that having
additional flexibility regarding the types of activities that are
eligible to be completed using planning funds would improve the
planning process. Currently, FHWA guidance precludes using planning
funds for projects' environmental analyses that "clearly extends beyond
transportation planning." As we mentioned previously, officials at a
few MPOs we spoke with stated that they are unclear about what
environmental activities are eligible under that definition, which
makes it difficult to conduct comprehensive transportation planning.
According to many of the MPOs we interviewed and 90 percent of the MPOs
responding to our survey, creating more flexibility in how the planning
funds can be spent would improve the effectiveness of the planning
process and allow MPOs to be more efficient by prioritizing their
limited resources to the most critical planning activities. However,
providing such flexibility in federal transportation funds could result
in less transparency and accountability. In particular, when funds can
be flexed across different activities, there is less ability to assess
the impact of particular funding streams--such as transportation
planning funds--on the achievement of key goals.
Creating Greater Variation in Planning Requirements:
A number of the proposals for improving the MPO planning process
include creating further variation--in addition to the TMA and non-TMA
distinction--in MPOs' planning requirements and authority to account
for the wide variation in capacity of MPOs across the country. For
example, creating additional variations in MPOs' planning requirements
could include the development of abbreviated planning requirements for
MPOs. SAFETEA-LU allows that the Secretary of Transportation may permit
MPOs that are not designated as TMAs or are not in nonattainment for
ozone or carbon monoxide to develop abbreviated metropolitan
transportation plans or TIPs. In so doing, the Secretary must take into
account the complexity of transportation problems in the area.[Footnote
27] MPOs in small metropolitan areas--where transportation needs are
often less complex--could benefit from abbreviated planning
requirements. To date, no MPOs have applied for the abbreviated
planning requirements, according to DOT officials.
Other proposals suggest that MPOs that have exhibited increased
capacity--e.g., those that are conducting additional activities beyond
the current planning requirements--could be allowed additional
implementation authority to oversee the development of certain
projects. Likewise, an MPO could be granted expanded authority to plan
and fund a metropolitan area's transportation projects--focusing
available transportation funds on projects that will benefit a region
the most, regardless of mode. A large majority of the survey
respondents--79 percent--stated that additional project implementation
authority would improve effectiveness of the MPO planning process.
[Footnote 28]
However, granting additional authorities to MPOs or reducing the
requirements could result in some additional challenges for MPOs and
DOT. Additional federal and state oversight may be needed for (1) MPOs
that take on new, traditionally non-MPO responsibilities, such as
project implementation or (2) MPOs that reduce their planning
requirements in order to ensure that the abbreviated process adequately
accounts for the transportation needs of the area. Additionally, over
half of the survey respondents reported that they do not have the
capacity to undertake additional project implementation authorities,
despite the fact that a large majority of MPOs stated increased
implementation authority would improve the effectiveness of their
planning process.
Other proposals include changing the legal definition of MPOs to
realign the MPO planning process with current capacity and planning
needs. In particular, one option calls for an increase in the
population threshold for mandatory MPO creation. Requiring the
formation of MPOs at a larger population threshold could ease the
burden of the previously mentioned resource constraints affecting small
MPOs, including funding and staffing shortages. Specifically, one of
the state departments of transportation we interviewed--one that
contains more rural areas--noted that the current population threshold
of 50,000 can create a situation in which a relatively small, rural
area with less complex transportation needs is given MPO
responsibilities. In these situations, MPOs may have difficulty funding
an adequate number of positions--or filling them with qualified
individuals--to do the work needed to meet federal and state
requirements. Raising the population threshold could raise the
likelihood that MPO efforts are limited to urban areas with more
advanced transportation needs. However, about 73 percent of survey
respondents from small MPOs reported that raising the threshold would
not be an appropriate way to improve the planning process. An official
from a small MPO we interviewed noted that any reduction in
responsibilities for small MPOs must be a contextual decision based on
the complexity of the transportation needs in the area, such as
proximity to a large metropolitan area that is expected to grow in the
future.
Increasing Federal Investment in Modeling Efforts:
With regard to technical constraints, improving technical capabilities
across MPOs will likely require additional investment in modeling, data
gathering, or both. As noted previously, current models are not well
suited to representing travelers' responses to the complex range of
policies such as freight movement and motor vehicle emissions. Of
particular concern is that many MPOs have inadequate data to support
their modeling processes, even for traditional travel demand forecasts.
Eighty-seven percent of MPOs surveyed said that greater federal support
for transportation research and data would improve their effectiveness.
Moreover, many of the MPOs we interviewed agreed that federal
government investment in modeling and data gathering is necessary to
ensure greater reliability in travel demand forecasting across MPOs and
to help account for the increasing complexity of transportation
forecasting and data needs in urban areas. Furthermore, without such an
investment, policymakers may lack the information needed to make
informed decisions on investments related to the transportation system.
Toward this end, TRB's Special Report 288 recommended the development
and implementation of new modeling approaches to travel demand
forecasting that are better suited to providing reliable information.
These new modeling approaches include such applications as multimodal
investment analyses, environmental assessments, evaluations of a wide
range of policy alternatives, and meeting federal and state regulatory
requirements. TRB also made various recommendations for improvements,
including increasing DOT support and funding for incremental
improvements to models in settings appropriate for their use, and the
continued development, demonstration, and implementation of advanced
modeling approaches.[Footnote 29] Additionally, TRB encouraged DOT
collaboration with MPOs and states to examine data collection needs,
including data requirements for validating current travel forecasting
models and meeting regulatory requirements. Most recently, in July
2009, when DOT announced its principles for an 18-month extension of
federal highway, transit, and highway and trucking safety programs, it
called for an investment of $300 million to build state and MPO
planning capacity for the collection and analysis of data on
transportation goals. Additionally, DOT's 18-month extension proposal
suggests an investment of $10 million to build MPOs' informational and
analytic capacity to refine assessment tools at the federal level,
among other things.
Making the Planning Process More Performance-Based:
Currently there are no requirements to attain explicit performance
thresholds, such as reducing congestion or improving highway safety,
built into the federal planning requirements for MPOs.[Footnote 30]
MPOs and industry representatives we interviewed recognized the value
of making the planning process more performance-based, noting that
focusing on outcomes could improve transportation investment decision
making. In addition, DOT's recently released principles for an 18-month
extension of certain federal surface transportation programs also calls
for stronger requirements for tracking and reporting on the projected
and actual outcomes of transportation investments that use federal
dollars. Using performance measures could help hold MPOs accountable
for carrying out a 3-C transportation planning process that encourages
and promotes a safe and efficient surface transportation system.
According to our survey, most MPOs already report using performance
measures to some extent to assess results achieved. However, MPOs
generally reported using output-based measures, such as compliance with
state and federal transportation planning rules, rather than outcome-
based measures, such as improved safety. Further, some DOT officials we
spoke with maintained that the wide variety of needs and capacities
among regions would make it difficult to establish national performance
measures. To overcome the challenge of creating such measures for all
MPOs, some officials said that broader performance goals could be
established at the national level, while more specific measures and
targets could be left for states and regions to establish.
Establishing outcome-based measures for all MPOs would also require DOT
to expand its oversight so that it can assess the progress of MPOs in
achieving specific results, rather than focusing on compliance with
existing statutes and rules. However, a few MPOs and the DOT officials
we spoke to noted that it would not be appropriate to hold MPOs
accountable for specific outcomes because they do not have the
authority to implement their plans. Indeed, it is often up to local
jurisdictions and the state to carry out MPO plans, and they do not
always have the same priorities and goals as the MPOs. Some MPO
stakeholders we spoke to noted that reconciling the needs of the region
with the priorities of individual jurisdictions is a significant
challenge. Nevertheless, other officials we spoke to noted that the
purpose of MPOs is to establish a consensus on a region's long-term
transportation goals and that it would be appropriate to link those
goals with specific outcomes.
Conclusions:
Our survey shows a pattern of variations and challenges that could
increasingly compromise the quality of regional transportation
planning, potentially allowing transportation problems--such as
increasing congestion--to inhibit economic activity in the United
States. For example:
* MPOs' roles and responsibilities are not commensurate with their
requirements. Under the current system, a small MPO with a simple
transportation mission and limited technical capacity is generally
accountable to the same planning and program requirements and oversight
as a large MPO with a complex, multimodal transportation system,
raising questions as to whether the federal government is appropriately
targeting its oversight resources. SAFETEA-LU allows MPOs to seek
permission to use a more abbreviated planning process. MPOs may not be
universally aware of this option since, to date, no MPOs have utilized
it.
* The quality of MPOs' computerized travel demand models and the data
used to support the process is often insufficient or unreliable. As
planning organizations, one of the important functions of MPOs is the
ability to forecast and analyze an increasingly complex and growing set
of environmental, transportation, and social trends. Thus if MPOs are
not able to keep pace with the increasing complexity of this task,
their contribution to transportation planning may be compromised.
However, on a cautionary note, effective forecasting requires both
quality computer models and accurate data, such that investing in one
without improving the other may waste resources. DOT's July 2009 18-
month extension proposal calls for additional resources for the
collection and analysis of data on transportation goals to help build
transportation planning capacity. Adopting TRB's modeling and data
gathering recommendations is an example of how the additional resources
could be invested.
* Finally, because the oversight mechanisms for MPOs are focused on
process, rather than outcomes, it is unclear what impact regional
transportation planning is having on transportation outcomes. Despite
over 30 years of a federally mandated and funded transportation
planning process and billions spent on roads, bridges, and transit
projects, there is not enough information for policymakers to determine
whether the planning process is addressing critical transportation
challenges facing the United States. However, shifting to a more
performance-based oversight approach will require legislative changes.
Addressing these variations and challenges is particularly important
given some proposed reforms that would increase the ability of
metropolitan and local governments to access additional federal
transportation funds. The upcoming reauthorization of federal surface
transportation programs provides Congress and DOT an opportunity to
address these challenges and enhance regional transportation planning.
For example, Congress and DOT could examine what is being invested in
the federal oversight process, what the return for this investment is,
and how it may be improved.
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
Congress should consider making MPO transportation planning more
performance-based--for example, by identifying specific transportation
outcomes for transportation planning and charging the U.S. Department
of Transportation with assessing MPOs' progress in achieving these
outcomes in the certification review process.
Recommendations:
To improve the transportation planning process, we are recommending
that the Secretary of Transportation take the following two actions:
1. Direct the Administrators of the Federal Highway Administration and
the Federal Transit Administration to establish guidelines for MPOs to
apply for, and implement, the abbreviated planning clause for small
MPOs, and share these guidelines with existing MPOs.
2. Develop a strategy to improve data gathering and modeling efforts
among MPOs, including establishing a timeline for implementing the
modeling and data recommendations for the federal government in the
Transportation Research Board's Special Report 288.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to DOT for review and comment. DOT
agreed to consider the report's recommendations. DOT also provided
technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees and the Secretary of Transportation. In addition, this
report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-2834 or herrp@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to
this report are listed in appendix II.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Phillip R. Herr:
Director:
Physical Infrastructure Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To identify and assess the characteristics and responsibilities of
metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) we reviewed current and
previous federal statutes and regulations governing MPOs. We also
reviewed relevant academic, industry association, GAO, and U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) research and publications to
understand MPOs' transportation planning responsibilities, the ways
MPOs vary, and the challenges MPOs face in carrying out their
responsibilities. Additionally, we interviewed representatives from
industry associations, as well as MPO, Federal Transit Administration
(FTA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and DOT officials to
clarify MPO planning responsibilities, identify transportation planning
challenges, and assess how DOT provides oversight for MPOs and the
extent to which this improves transportation planning. To further
examine the role of state departments of transportation in metropolitan
planning and assess the potential impact of various changes to MPOs, we
contacted 11 additional state departments of transportation by e-mail
and received responses from 6. We also attended and observed a DOT on-
site certification review in Savannah, Georgia, to further understand
the federal oversight of transportation management areas (TMA).
To determine the various options for improving regional transportation
planning, we reviewed federal surface transportation program
reauthorization proposals from the Association of Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (AMPO), American Association of State Highway and
Transportation officials, American Public Transportation Association,
Brookings Institution, the previous and current DOT administrations,
and the current House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
blueprint for reauthorization. We also discussed informal proposals or
suggestions for improving the planning process with MPO, federal, and
state officials.
To gather in-depth information on the roles and responsibilities of
MPOs, the extent to which federal oversight improves transportation
planning, and possible ways to improve regional transportation
planning, we conducted a Web-based survey of all 381 MPOs. This survey
was conducted from February 3 to April 1, 2009. To prepare the
questionnaire, we pretested potential questions with MPOs of different
sizes and from different FTA regions to ensure that (1) the questions
and possible responses were clear and thorough, (2) terminology was
used correctly, (3) questions did not place an undue burden on the
respondents, (4) the information was feasible to obtain, and (5) the
questionnaire was comprehensive and unbiased. On the basis of feedback
from the seven pretests we conducted, we made changes to the content
and format of some survey questions. The results of our survey can be
found at GAO-09-867SP.
To identify MPOs to survey, we obtained MPO contact information from
DOT and AMPO; any inconsistencies between the two lists were reconciled
with phone calls to the relevant MPO. We also contacted all of the MPOs
in advance, by e-mail, to ensure that we had identified the correct
respondents and to request their completion of the questionnaire. After
the survey had been available for 2 weeks, and again after 4 and 6
weeks, we used e-mail and telephone calls to contact MPOs who had not
completed their questionnaires. Using these procedures, we obtained an
86 percent response rate. Because this was not a sample survey, there
are no sampling errors. However, the practical difficulties of
conducting any survey may introduce errors, commonly referred to as
nonsampling errors. For example, difficulties in how a particular
question is interpreted, in the sources of information that are
available to respondents, or in how the data are entered into a
database or were analyzed can introduce unwanted variability into the
survey results. We took steps in the development of the questionnaire,
the data collection, and the data analysis to minimize these
nonsampling errors. For instance, a survey specialist designed the
questionnaire in collaboration with GAO staff who have subject-matter
expertise. Further, the draft questionnaire was pretested with a number
of MPOs to ensure that the questions were relevant, clearly stated, and
easy to comprehend. When the data were analyzed, a second, independent
analyst checked all computer programs. Finally, nonresponding MPOs were
distributed among different states and sizes of MPOs in a way that did
not show evidence of bias.
To gather additional information on the roles and responsibilities of
MPOs, the extent to which federal oversight improves transportation
planning, and possible ways to improve regional transportation
planning, we conducted case studies in eight metropolitan areas. Each
case study involved interviews with the designated MPO for that
metropolitan area, as well as the state department of transportation,
transit operators, and other relevant regional organizations. We
selected MPOs to visit and examine based on the following criteria:
* population (based on whether or not the MPO is in a designated TMA);
* location (based on the FTA region);
* air quality (based on whether the MPO is located in an air quality
nonattainment area);
* structure of the MPO (based on whether the MPO is an independent
agency or housed within another organization or jurisdiction); and:
* recommendations from internal stakeholders, experts, associations,
and federal DOT officials we consulted.
Although using these criteria allowed us, in our view, to obtain
information from a diverse mix of MPOs, the findings from our case
studies cannot be generalized to all MPOs because they were selected as
part of a nonprobability sample.[Footnote 31] Table 2 lists the region
and relevant MPOs where we conducted case studies.
Table 2: Metropolitan Regions Selected for Case Study:
Metropolitan area: Albuquerque, New Mexico;
Designated MPO: Mid-Region Council of Governments.
Metropolitan area: Dallas-Ft. Worth, Texas;
Designated MPO: North Central Texas Council of Governments.
Metropolitan area: Gainesville, Florida;
Designated MPO: North Central Florida Regional Planning Council.
Metropolitan area: Jacksonville, Florida;
Designated MPO: North Florida Transportation Planning Organization.
Metropolitan area: Sacramento, California;
Designated MPO: Sacramento Area Council of Governments.
Metropolitan area: San Francisco, California;
Designated MPO: Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
Metropolitan area: Santa Fe, New Mexico;
Designated MPO: Santa Fe Metropolitan Planning Organization.
Metropolitan area: Sherman, Texas;
Designated MPO: Sherman-Dennison Metropolitan Planning Organization.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Phillip R. Herr, (202) 512-2834 or herrp@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, A. Nicole Clowers, Acting
Director; Kyle Browning; F. Chase Cook; Kathleen Gilhooly; Cathy
Hurley; Stu Kaufman; Sara Ann Moessbaeur; Josh Ormond; Stephanie
Purcell; Amy Rosewarne; Jay Smale; and Susan Zimmerman made key
contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 102-240.
[2] Pub. L. No. 109-59.
[3] To establish this list of MPOs, we obtained contact information
from the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Association of
Metropolitan Planning Organizations. Any inconsistencies between the
two lists were reconciled with phone calls to the relevant MPO in
January 2009. We received completed questionnaires from 328 (86
percent) of the MPOs. Nonresponding MPOs were distributed among
different states and sizes of MPOs in a way that did not show evidence
of bias.
[4] Planning organizations are not required for rural areas. As part of
the statewide planning process, the state department of transportation
consults with local officials in nonurban areas and determines the
projects in those areas to which the state will direct resources.
However, some states have Rural Planning Organizations to plan for the
expenditure of federal and state transportation funds in their area.
[5] These long-range plans are generally called metropolitan
transportation plans.
[6] In providing interested parties "a reasonable opportunity to
comment on the transportation plan," 23 U.S.C. § 134(i)(5)(C) and 49
U.S.C. § 5303 (i)(5)(C) require an MPO "to the maximum extent
practicable...hold any public meetings at convenient and accessible
locations and times."
[7] The long-range plan and TIP must include information on how the MPO
reasonably expects to fund the projects included in the plan, including
anticipated revenues from FHWA and FTA, state government, regional or
local sources, the private sector, and user charges. The long-range
plan must also demonstrate that there is a balance between the expected
revenue sources for transportation investments and the estimated costs
of the projects and programs described in the plan.
[8] With respect to environmental resource agencies, SAFETEA-LU
requires that long-range transportation plans be developed in
consultation with state and local agencies responsible for land-use
management, natural resources, environmental protection, conservation,
and historic preservation, and that state conservation plans or maps
and inventories of natural or historic resources be consulted, if
available.
[9] The CMP is a process for monitoring transportation system
performance that involves data collection, performance measurement and
monitoring, and the identification of strategies and projects to manage
congestion.
[10] This transportation conformity analysis requires MPOs to use
forecasts for their long-range plan to estimate traffic volumes and
speeds, which become inputs to the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) MOBILE model. That model, in turn, provides estimates of future
motor vehicle source emissions. These emissions estimates are used to
determine whether the proposed transportation plan and programs will
result in motor vehicle emission levels that conform to those
established in state air quality plans and approved by EPA. Under
federal conformity requirements, if the estimated emissions that result
from future vehicle travel exceed budgets established in the state
implementation plan, which is required by EPA, and transportation
conformity cannot be determined, projects and programs must be delayed,
except for projects determined to be exempt from air quality
conformity.
[11] The STIP is similar to the TIP in that it identifies 4 years of
transportation project priorities and must be fiscally constrained.
STIPs must be approved by both FHWA and FTA.
[12] Eleven percent of survey respondents specified "other" as the MPO
structure.
[13] Transit funds for rural areas are administered by the state
department of transportation.
[14] TRB, Metropolitan Travel Forecasting: Current Practice and Future
Direction, Special Report 288 (2007). TRB is one of six major divisions
of the National Research Council--a private, nonprofit institution that
is the principal operating agency of the National Academies in
providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific
and engineering communities. TRB provides leadership in transportation
innovation and progress through research and information exchange,
conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and
multimodal.
[15] The CMAQ program, jointly administered by the FHWA and FTA,
provides funds to state departments of transportation, MPOs, and
transit agencies to invest in projects that reduce criteria air
pollutants regulated from transportation-related sources over a period
of 5 years. Funding is available for areas that do not meet federal air
quality standards (nonattainment areas), as well as former
nonattainment areas that are now in compliance (maintenance areas). The
formula for distribution of funds--which considers an area's population
by county and the severity of its ozone and carbon monoxide problems
within the nonattainment or maintenance area, with greater weight given
to areas that are both carbon monoxide and ozone nonattainment and
maintenance areas--is continued.
[16] For questions where we asked about the challenges that MPOs face,
we used a five-point scale to measure the extent of the challenge: very
great challenge, great challenge, moderate challenge, some or little
challenge, and no challenge. For the purposes of this report, we
combined the responses for moderate challenge, great challenge, and
very great challenge to describe the challenges MPOs identified.
[17] Specifically, under 23 CFR Part 420 FHWA funding programs, once a
general travel corridor or specific project has progressed to a point
in the preliminary/engineering National Environmental Policy Act phase
that clearly extends beyond transportation planning, additional in-
depth environmental studies must be funded through the program category
for which the ultimate project qualifies (e.g., National Highway
System, Interstate Maintenance, or Bridge Programs), rather than
metropolitan planning or statewide planning and research funds.
[18] GAO, Urban Transportation: Metropolitan Planning Organizations'
Efforts to Meet Federal Planning Requirements, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-96-200] (Washington, D.C.: Sept.
17, 1996).
[19] Current transportation demand models are also unable to predict
the effect of a transportation investment on land-use patterns and
development.
[20] GAO, Highway and Transit Investments: Options for Improving
Information on Projects' Benefits and Costs and Increasing
Accountability for Results, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-172] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 24,
2005).
[21] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-172].
[22] TRB, Metropolitan Travel Forecasting: Current Practice and Future
Direction, Special Report 288 (2007).
[23] The National Household Travel Survey is a DOT effort sponsored by
the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and FHWA to collect data on
both long-distance and local travel by the American public. The joint
survey gathers trip-related data, such as mode of transportation,
duration, distance, and purpose of trip. MPOs also conduct household
travel surveys to collect data on local travel in their respective
metropolitan areas.
[24] According to DOT's MPO database, 155 MPOs have at least one part
of their designated boundary within a TMA.
[25] GAO, Rail Transit: Additional Federal Leadership Would Enhance
FTA's State Safety Oversight Program, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-821] (Washington, D.C.: July 26,
2006) and GAO, Surface Transportation: Restructured Federal Approach
Needed for More Focused, Performance-Based, and Sustainable Programs,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-400] (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 6, 2008).
[26] DOT officials generally agreed with our recommendations and stated
that, although they do have some performance measures in place for
certain programs, additional performance measures could be beneficial.
[27] SAFETEA-LU 23 U.S.C. § 134(l); 49 U.S.C. § 5303(l).
[28] For questions where we asked about the options that would improve
the effectiveness of the MPO planning process, we used a five-point
scale to measure extent: very great extent, great extent, moderate
extent, some or little extent, and no extent. For the purposes of this
report, we combined the responses for moderate extent, great extent,
and very great extent to report the percentage of responses that
indicated an option would improve the effectiveness of the planning
process.
[29] Advanced travel models are based on a more comprehensive
understanding of the activities of households; that is, they reflect
the full range of trade-offs that affect whether to make a trip, what
time a trip is made, the destinations visited, the modes used, and the
paths selected.
[30] The CMP requires that TMAs monitor congestion and consider
potential congestion relief measures in formulating long-range plans.
[31] Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make
inferences about a population because, in a nonprobability sample, some
elements of the population being studied have no chance or an unknown
chance of being selected as part of the sample.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
