Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program
- Peer Exchange Report -
Washington, D.C.: Management and Operations
November 27, 2001
| PARTICIPANTS | Wayne Berman, FHWA
Cindy Burbank, FHWA Hubert Clay, Baltimore Metropolitan Council Melanie Crotty, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, San Francisco Sheldon Edner, FHWA Dwight Farmer, Hampton Roads Planning District Commission Craig Forrest, Baltimore Regional Transportation Board Steven Gayle, Binghamton Metropolitan Transportation Study Charlie Goodman, FTA Ashby Johnson, FHWA Ron Kirby, National Capital Region, TPB, Washington DC Connie Kozlak, Metropolitan Council, Twin Cities, Minnesota John Mason, National Capital Region, TPB, Washington DC Mike Meyer, Georgia Institute of Technology Michael Morris, North Central Texas Council of Governments George Schoener, FHWA Tom Swanson, PIMA Association of Governments, Tucson, Az Alex Taft, Associations of Metropolitan Planning Organizations Tisha Weichmann, Volpe Center, USDOT |
|---|
SUMMARY
This report summarizes the results of an AMPO-sponsored meeting on how to better incorporate system management and operations (M&O) considerations into the transportation planning process. The agenda for this meeting and the list of attendees is attached. It is important to note at the outset that the MPOs invited to participate in this meeting were selected because of their experience with M&O activities, and in some cases, are known as national leaders in integrating M&O into transportation planning. To some extent then, the conclusions and observations discussed below reflect the more positive experience with the role of MPOs in M&O efforts.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
History of Involvement: Many MPOs have been actively involved with M&O issues for numerous years. This involvement varies from one region to another depending on the local circumstances and needs. The MPOs in the Bay Area, Dallas–Ft. Worth, Hampton Roads, and Washington DC, for example, can point to many successful initiatives in which the MPO acted to successfully guide/broker/coordinate M&O activities. At least with respect to this limited sample, the stereotypical vision of an MPO as simply concerned with the plan and TIP does not seem to hold.
VARIED ROLESThe role that the MPO can play in M&O varies depending on many factors. Possible roles mentioned during the meeting included: convener in response to clearly identified need (e.g., Washington DC), convener/advocate because M&O makes good planning sense (e.g., Baltimore and Hampton Roads), implementer/ funder because no other agency is enabled or willing to do so (e.g., Bay Area), educator of local officials on M&O benefits (New York MPO’s), arbiter for regional allocation of M&O funds (e.g., Bay Area, Dallas–Ft. Worth and Washington DC) and supporting partner to a state DOT known for M&O innovation and leadership (e.g., Twin Cities). The MPO representatives continually emphasized the importance of becoming a successful partner with transportation operating agencies, something that not surprisingly will be defined differently throughout the U.S.
IMPORTANCE OF SYSTEM PERFORMANCE MONITORING
The participants generally agreed that the key to better integration/linkage of M&O and transportation planning is found in the monitoring of system performance. Several concepts were discussed that relate to such system monitoring, including performance measures, use of management systems, data collection, market research, and funding allocation based on system performance. Simple and meaningful performance measures are needed. The performance measures need to be customer focused in the broadest sense—relevant to elected officials, transportation decision makers, transportation managers, technical staff and the public. The importance of all these activities seems to reflect two key considerations. Monitoring system performance reflects those concerns of most interest to customers and decision makers. In addition, systematically incorporating performance information into the decision making process would likely raise the importance of M&O strategies as part of a metropolitan strategy to improve this performance. One of the ways some MPOs are introducing this into the planning process is through the development of "state of the region" or "state of the system" report.
DEVLOPING A MINDSET FOR M&O
There was a natural tendency to talk about M&O efforts in the context of "projects". However, most of the participants view the ultimate success of an integrated M&O/planning perspective as being a "mindset" that views transportation as a system where capital projects and M&O strategies don’t compete, but are rather considered as complementary and supportive to one another. This often goes counter to the structure of decision making in most regions where local officials are concerned (not surprisingly) with their own jurisdiction’s infrastructure needs and the corresponding amount of funding that their locality will receive (although monitoring system performance might provide information for a more "systems" perspective). The structure of transportation funding programs (not just federal), the historical mandates for planning products that result in project lists, the organizational and professional culture that focuses on project development, and the political desire for ribbon cuttings are formidable challenges to creating this mindset.
There was a sense among the participants that the increasing emphasis on M&O is really a transition and thus evolutionary in nature. Therefore, there is no need for new organizational structures or institutions nationwide to manage this evolution. Most MPO participants agree that they need to do a better job at strengthening their relationships/ partnerships with operating agencies, but that the nature of operations–focused organizations is such that they "will do the job" when the time comes. This raises interesting questions about what types of operating issues that any organization, not just the MPO that desires to "coordinate" operations is likely to face. One of the interesting examples during this discussion was the Washington D.C. and Baltimore transition from ITS committees to M&O committees. This is likely an example of the natural progression (maybe even a maturation?) in the M&O activities of MPOs.
NO MANDATES FOR NEW ORGANIZATION STRUCTURES:
MPO representatives expressed grave concern that FHWA leaders are sending mixed messages about the need for a new regional organization for transportation system management and operations. They strongly objected to the premise that a new organization should be used as a starting point for change. Rather, there is a need for a performance focus in transportation decision making. An appropriate emphasis on system management and operations will follow, including any organizational change that would be necessary.
National Security Issues Fall Naturally Into M&O Initiatives. Some MPO’s, (e.g., Hampton Roads) have participated in regional emergency management preparation efforts relating to potential man-made disruptions as well as natural disasters. The participants felt that several topics lend themselves to a role for the MPO in security/safety-related activities, including working with security/safety agencies in prevention/ surveillance, evacuation, disaster response, and system recovery activities. One of the issues raised in the context of terrorist attacks is the availability of MPO information and data on a region’s transportation system. Is providing easy access to information on the transportation system something that needs to be reconsidered? The MPO participants agreed that more effort needs to be made to support emergency response/management agencies in helping them achieve their goals. They also recommended that additional information on possible MPO role(s) in security/safety planning should be developed.
SPECIFIC MPO RECOMMENDATIONS
The MPO participants were asked to recommend specific actions and/or provide guidance to the Federal agencies with respect to how M&O and transportation planning should be considered in reauthorization.The following suggestions were made: Federal guidance/regulation should motivate MPO’s to target what needs to be achieved, rather than mandate how it should be done. For example, one might want to require that performance measures relating to system management and operations be articulated as part of the planning process, but that how system performance is improved is left to the metropolitan area. The M&O concept should be presented as a positive challenge and opportunity for MPO’s to improve system performance. It should not be viewed as another burden for MPOs in the context of transportation planning (and certification). Importantly, educating local officials and sensitizing the decision making process to M&O issues should be an important part of any effort to improve the linkage between transportation planning and M&O.Reauthorization should provide additional dollars for M&O activities, not simply provide dollars out of existing pots of money. However, even within
existing program categories (e.g., NHS), there should be an examination of eligibility for M&O actions. One of the models proposed for M&O funding was the CMAQ program in which a great deal of flexibility is provided to a metropolitan area in targeting funds where it best serves program purposes with measurable outcomes (improved air quality and conformity). In a similar model for M&O, some measure of funds distribution relating to M&O need would have to be developed.
Because metropolitan areas are so different, Federal guidance/regulation should allow MPO’s to determine what role, if any, they want to play in M&O coordination. In other words, the MPOs felt that each region should be able to tailor its M&O initiatives to its specific circumstances. This response is also likely to evolve over time, thus it is important for any Federal program initiative to provide support and technical guidance over many years.
The emphasis on system performance should not lose sight of the Federal interests in the nation’s transportation system. For example, national defense is an issue that should be an important system performance consideration as it relates to mobilization and population evacuation.
POSSIBLE FURTHER ACTIONS
With regard to future FHWA/FTA activities, and most likely in conjunction with AMPO, the success of this meeting suggested:
- 1. Small Peer Group Meetings: Meetings that bring together MPO peers and others (such as FHWA and FTA) to discuss M&O experience, lessons learned, and future directions have the potential to be very productive. This model has been used by SCOP for several years to foster exchange among state planning directors. If structured appropriately, not only can these meetings provide feedback to FHWA and FTA, but they can serve as a means of disseminating experience and guidance among the MPOs. Experience suggests that any professional group will listen more to "one of their own" than to others who purport to offer wisdom.
- 2. MPO Case Studies on M&O Experience: There seems to be a problem of perception of what MPOs can do, and in many cases, are doing in M&O (once again with the caveat that MPO capabilities and institutional constraints will vary significantly across the nation). Case studies that show good practice and that are disseminated widely will not only provide role models for other MPOs, but
- could also help dispel a stereotype of the MPO as the old-type planner. Success stories are the best way of conveying information and of motivating others to pursue similar activities.
- 3. Capacity-Building Initiative: One of the key themes that emerged from this meeting was the need to educate decision makers. The capacity-building initiative is intended to do this. Perhaps initial MPO meetings that introduce the capacity-building materials could highlight the potential of M&O strategies in the context of MPO regional transportation planning efforts.
- 4. M&O Demonstrations: The value of seeing what can be accomplished somewhere else cannot be underestimated. The Operations/Planning Workshops have come to the same conclusion. It might be worthwhile to fund several planning/M&O initiatives to highlight the benefits of coordinated planning and M&O activities so as to motivate others to consider similar action. Given the budget situation, this might have to await reauthorization.
