The 2008 Review of Florida’s MPO Long Range
Transportation Plans
Alex Bond and Jeff KramerFlorida MPOAC
October 23, 2008
About the Review
• Prior reviews in 1997 and 2002
• Includes plans adopted between 2003 and 2006
• Project began October 2007
• Report release date: November
Methodology
• Collect hard copies of all 25 LRTPs
• Reviewed each plan and supporting documentation
• Extracted financial data for shortfall estimate
• Follow-up with each MPO
OBSERVATIONS OF PLANNING PRACTICE
Improved User-Friendliness
• Text more descriptive, more maps and graphics
• Elimination of modeling data
• Less unexplained jargon
• Summary documents and handouts more common
The Internet
• All LRTPs on the Internet
• Some were only available electronically
• Some formats work poorly for internet publication
Authorship
• One-quarter of plans were authored in-house
• Nine consulting firms authored the rest
• Some replication of critical plan components
Public Involvement
• MPOs are going well beyond state and federal law
• Many excellent examples of public involvement
• Did not demonstrate how involvement impacted the final plan
• Widespread attempts to brand MPOs
Public Involvement
ETDM and Local Studies
• ETDM is being used by every MPO
• Nationwide model, very effective
• Fewer local studies
• ETDM-only analysis may miss local issues
Transit
• Increased emphasison transit
• All MPOs discuss transit, almost all have at least one transit project
• Often, revenues are being analyzed before needs
Bicycle and Pedestrian
• Deeply ingrained into LRTPs
• Included in all new roadways
• Vast networks planned
• Well-funded, sometimes with boxed funds
Strategic Intermodal System
• Difficulty adjusting to the SIS
• Some note loss of reasonablyanticipated revenue
• Uncertain which projects funded by SIS Cost Feasible Plan
Interagency Coordination
• Institutionalized and perpetual
• Better coordination with CIPs
• Seventeen MPOs join multi-MPO organizations
• Uncertain how to relate to toll authorities and incorporate their projects
Financial Reporting
• Base and horizon yearsvaried, some includeTIP years
• Plan length varied from 15 to 25 years
• Many MPOs include operations and maintenance
• Some local sources expire before horizon year
2030 20250
5
10
15
Horizon Years and TIP Inclusion
TIP Years ExcludedInclusive
TWENTY-YEAR STATEWIDE FUNDING SHORTFALL
$62,472,500,000
Shortfall Details
• $62.5 billion over twenty years
• $3.1 billion per year
• Shortfall is growing
• Shortfall by MPO available in report
Review Year
Shortfall in 2005 Dollars
Percent Growth
Cumulative Growth
1997 $29.8 Billion -- --2002 $42.7 Billion 43% --2008 $62.5 Billion 46% 110%
Note: The 1997 and 2002 reviews have been adjusted into 2005 dollars to enable comparison. The first review revealed a shortfall of $22.3 billion in 1995 dollars. The second review revealed a $37.7 billion shortfall in 2000 dollars.
Shortfall Methodology
• Needs plan cost minus revenue
• Adjust into 2005 dollars
Suggestions
• MPOs should relate how information gained during public involvement activities was incorporated into the LRTP document and the projects it contains.
• MPOs should continue to refine their LRTPs for Internet publication.
• Consider the goals of the Florida Transportation Plan when drafting the goals and objectives of the LRTP.
Suggestions
• ETDM is an outstanding tool, but the strength of MPO planning is the insertion of local knowledge into the planning process.
• MPOs should exercise more editorial control over the content of plans authored by consultants, with the aim of crafting a document that is original and customized.
• Establish transit needs before revenues are analyzed.
Suggestions
• Even though the Internet will be the primary source for LRTP distribution, at least a limited number of documents should be made available in hard copy format.
• MPOs should not separate needs on SIS facilities from non-SIS facilities during the analysis and project selection process.
Suggestions
• MPOs should demonstrate their expertise in planning for the transportation disadvantaged in the LRTP.
• Guidance on how to analyze and consider toll projects would be helpful when planning for these types of roadways.
• MPOs should continue to work with FDOT to make the investment policy flexible enough to implement the MPO mission.
Suggestions
• Evacuation routes should play a larger role in deciding which projects are included in the cost feasible plan.
• MPOs should take greater care to demonstrate and document how the projects contained in their cost feasible plan support the adopted goals and objectives of the LRTP.
Questions?COMMENTS?
Alex Bond, [email protected] (813) 974-9779
Jeff Kramer, [email protected](813) 974-1397
Look for the report in November