Regionalism Through Partnerships? Metropolitan Planning Since ISTEA

Abstract

Metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) were given significant new responsibilities fo r transportation decision-making with the passage of ISTEA but were exp ected to carry out these responsibilities in partnership with state agencies and a variety of public and private interest groups. Since the ISTEA partnership approach is continued under the fo llow-on TEA-21 /egis/ation, it is important to understand the institutional relationships thus fo rmed and their strengths and limitations. Drawing from the literature as well as our own interviews in two dozen large metropolitan regions, in this paper we review the experience to date with partnerships under JSTEA. Five types of partnerships are identified, in order of increasing levels of interaction, shared responsibility, and role equality: consultation, coordination, cooperation, consensus building, and collaboration. We find that most MPO activities are of the first three types. Successes in lower-level partnerships can open doors for higher levels of partnership, but by no means assure it; partnerships have produced gains but they also have caused cmiflicts. Research on the social learning aspects of partnership development could provide insights into the evolution of regional institutions as well as useful models for progressive practice.

Collaborative Planning by Metropolitan Planning Organizations

“…Note: Bold font identifies the specific variables from the research literature depicted in Figure 1. 4 The process of preparing and approving such plans is technically and politically complex because of the diversity of actors who must collaborate to produce them and their fragmented jurisdiction over information, other funding sources, and authority for project planning and implementation (Dempsey, Goetz, and Larson 2000;Goldman and Deakin 2000;Margerum, Brody, Parker, and McEwen 2011). The draft is vetted through federally mandated consultation with other affected agencies and public participation programs aimed at the broader array of transportation system users (23 USC § 134(i)(4) 2009).…”

Evaluating the outcomes associated with an innovative change in a state-level transportation project prioritization process: A case study of Vermont

“…However, the lack of direct representation can result in some SDOTs minimizing or ignoring input from localities and MPO/RPOs with respect to their priorities. In some cases this can lead to SDOTs not granting localities and MPO/RPOs their full statutory rights (Goldman and Deakin, 2000), or to SDOTs selecting state-level priorities over local and regional priorities when these priorities conflict. The way transportation funds are allocated to the different MPO/RPOs and localities within each state can also lead to competition instead of collaboration between regional and local actors, as they may not necessarily agree on regional and local project priorities.…”

“…This stipulation requires that local governments coordinate with their MPO/RPO counterparts as well as with their SDOT to synchronize planning efforts. Historically, relationships between many MPO/RPOs and their corresponding SDOTs have been weak or non-existent (Goldman and Deakin, 2000). This changed to a large degree with the implementation of the Intermodel Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) in 1990.…”

Metropolitan Transportation Planning: Lessons From the Past, Institutions for the Future

“…The federal transportation law of 1991-ISTEArenewed expectations for metropolitan planning, fi rst by bolstering MPO project selection authority. Fiscal constraint requirements made MPOs show how planned projects would be funded, precluding project wish lists and producing more credible MPO decisions (Goldman & Deakin, 2000 ). ISTEA also required 3C planning to conform with federal air quality standards; regions planning transportation projects that would worsen pollution would lose federal funds.…”