1. MPO Coordination NPRM NARC Member Webinar July 13, 2016 Presented by: Erich W. Zimmermann Director of Transportation Programs National Association of Regional Councils

2. Overview "...proposes to improve the transportation planning process by strengthening the coordination of MPOs and States and promoting the use of regional approaches to planning and decision-making.“ “…emphasize the importance of applying a regional perspective during the planning process, to ensure that transportation investments reflect the needs and priorities of an entire region.” “Recognizing the critical role MPOs play in providing for the well-being of a region, this proposed rule would strengthen the voice of MPOs in the transportation planning process.” “These proposed changes to the planning regulations are designed to facilitate metropolitan and statewide transportation planning processes that are more efficient, more comprehensible to stakeholders and the public, and more focused on projects that address critical regional needs.”

3. Overview “The Secretary of Transportation believes that the voices of MPOs will be strengthened by having a single coordinated metropolitan transportation plan and TIP for each MPA, which should create a united position on transportation needs and priorities within that urbanized area.” (note: no concurrence from FHWA and FTA)

4. Overview The basics of what the NPRM does: Revises the definition of Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) Updates the existing definition to include a statutory requirement in current code that an MPA contain, at a minimum, the entire urbanized area (UZA) and the area expected to become urbanized in the next 20 years Also clarifies that MPA boundaries are not necessarily synonymous with MPO boundaries Revises the definition of “metropolitan planning agreement,” “metropolitan transportation plan,” and “transportation improvement program” to reflect that they are prepared by one or more MPOs for the MPA UZA UZA + 20 MPA

5. Tampa

6. The NPRM Basics Once the MPAs are redrawn to meet this requirement, if more than one MPO exists within the same MPA: They are encouraged (but not required) to merge. Governor(s) (applies across state lines where applicable) and existing MPOs would make the determination whether the “size and complexity of the MPA make the designation of multiple MPOs appropriate” Appropriate to have more than one MPO? No. MPOs must either: 1) merge OR 2) adjust jurisdictions so only MPO in MPA Appropriate to have more than one MPO? Yes. Remaining MPOs must together 1) produce unified planning docs so each UZA has only one LRTP, TIP, and set of performance targets AND 2) establish procedures for joint decision-making, including a process for resolving disagreements.

7. What Happens When Immediately (within two years) MPA Boundaries: Each MPA is reconsidered in light of its relationship with the UZA. MPAs must be redrawn to contain, at a minimum, the entire UZA plus the area anticipated to be urbanized in the next 20 years. The maximum size of the MPA, per statute, is the MSA or CSA. Where multiple MPAs exist in a UZA, they must be merged so that a single MPA exists for the entire UZA The ultimate shape of the MPA is determined based on agreement between existing MPOs and relevant governor(s).

8. What Happens When Immediately MPOs: Per the previous slide, new MPAs are established When >1 MPO exists in an MPA, governor(s) and existing MPOs determine whether complexity of the MPA warrants >1 MPO No. MPOs must either: 1) merge OR 2) adjust jurisdictions Seems plausible that when there are three or more MPOs, some could merge while others remain, leaving fewer MPOs but more than one Yes. Remaining MPOs must together 1) produce unified planning docs so each UZA has only one LRTP, TIP, and set of performance targets AND 2) establish procedures for joint decision-making, including a process for resolving disagreements.

9. Tampa

10. What Happens When Immediately (within two years) MPOs: When >1 MPO in an MPA remains, those MPOs must establish joint agreements determining planning responsibilities and a dispute resolution process As required by the NPRM, States and MPOs jointly establish a dispute resolution process that is documented in their planning agreement

11. What Happens When After each Decennial Census MPA Boundaries: All MPAs are reconsidered in light of the new UZA plus the area expected to be urbanized within 20 years If the new MPA boundaries overlap, MPAs must either: 1) merge OR 2) be redrawn so as to remain separate Where previously separate UZAs have been merged by Census into one large UZA, the MPA must be redrawn based on this

12. What Happens When After each Decennial Census MPOs: Reconsider their position relative to the newly redrawn MPAs When >1 MPO exists in an MPA, governor(s) and existing MPOs determine whether complexity of the MPA warrants >1 MPO No. 1) merge OR 2) adjust jurisdictions Yes. 1) produce unified planning docs so each UZA has only one LRTP, TIP, and set of performance targets AND 2) establish procedures for joint decision-making, including a process for resolving disagreements.

13. UZA 1 + 20 UZA 2 + 20 MPAs encouraged to MERGE Or redraw the boundaries to eliminate the overlap.

14. Going into Detail 23 USC § 134(e) Metropolitan Planning Area Boundaries.— (2)Included area.— Each metropolitan planning area— (A) shall encompass at least the existing urbanized area and the contiguous area expected to become urbanized within a 20-year forecast period for the transportation plan; and (B) may encompass the entire metropolitan statistical area or consolidated metropolitan statistical area, as defined by the Bureau of the Census.

15. Going into Detail Regarding ISTEA regs: “In practice, however, many MPOs interpreted the MPA to be synonymous with the boundaries of their MPO's jurisdiction, even in those areas where multiple MPOs existed within a single urbanized area, resulting in multiple “MPAs” within a single urbanized area.” In reality, FHWA has allowed this interpretation to stand for nearly a quarter century, but especially since SAFETEA-LU “This proposed rule is designed to correct the problems that have occurred under the 2007 rule and return to the structure embodied in the rule before the 2007 amendments and envisioned in statute.”

16. Major Concerns One size fits none Exceeds statutory authority? Particularly in regards to mandating the creation of single LRTP and TIP USC §134(i)(1)(A): In general.— Each metropolitan planning organization shall prepare and update a transportation plan for its metropolitan planning area in accordance with the requirements of this subsection. Already allowable under current law No need for a major new federal requirement Carrots better than sticks Strong examples of where there is strong cross-jurisdictional cooperation right now (need more!) Making decisions based on a guess Two year phase-in

17. Major Concerns Does this help or harm regional planning? Too much leverage for the Governor? Goes against the federalist nature of the program Future creation of MPOs Complexity and difficulty of the proposed actions Merging MPOs Unified planning documents Agreements between States/MPOs and among MPOs regarding planning activities and dispute resolution Process Only a 60-day comment period, during the summer Just had a planning final rule from MAP-21/FAST Act During comment period for the PM3 rule

18. What’s Next FHWA Webinar on Friday, July 15 at 1pm ET Comments are due August 26 NARC, AMPO, NADO working together Already submitted a request for extension to the docket (DENIED!) Send us your drafts, thoughts, ideas about this rule Do you support the rule? Looking into hiring counsel Joint comments from the three organizations Hill outreach strategy

19. What’s Next You are strongly encouraged to: Attend FHWA webinar on Friday Inform your board about this proposal Talk internally about the NPRM and it’s impacts Develop examples where this type of activity is occurring absent this requirement Prepare comments to the docket and share them with us; share your ideas with us in other formats If you are able, reach out to MoC

20. What’s Next From NARC: Red lines of the changes the NPRM makes to the CFR (available now) This webinar (recording and slides available later today or tomorrow) Analysis (available very soon, maybe tomorrow) Another call to gather input Draft comments (22 nd ?) Congressional outreach materials To NARC: Thoughts, comments, ideas, draft of comments Members of Congress that may be concerned Examples of where this type of collaboration is already working

21. NARC contact info: Thank you! www.narc.org 202.986.1032 My contact info: erich@narc.org erich@narc.org 202-618-5697