Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Findings and ... - MavDISK

Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Findings and Recommendations for Improving
Transportation Planning
Author(s): Andrew R. Goetz, Paul Stephen Dempsey, Carl Larson
Source: Publius, Vol. 32, No. 1, Federalism and Surface Transportation, (Winter, 2002), pp. 87-
105
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3331075
Accessed: 11/06/2008 19:04
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We enable the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
http://www.jstor.org

Metropolitan Planning Organizations:
Findings and Recommendations
for Improving Transportation Planning
Andrew R. Goetz
University of Denver
Paul Stephen Dempsey
University of Denver
Carl Larson
University of Denver
With the enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act in 1991, metropolitan
planning organizations (MPOs) became more important institutionsfor planning andfunding regional
transportation systems. This study attempts to assess the success of MPOs in fourfast-growing areas-
Dallas/Ft. Worth, Denver, Phoenix, and Seattle-in meeting regional transportation needs. The research
identifies the criteria that distinguish more successful from less successful MPOs-effective leadership,
staff competence and credibility, quality public involvement, development of a regional ethos, streamlined
and efficient processes, cooperative relationships with the state DOT, land-use coordination, and
accountability to members-and offers suggestions for improving transportation planning.
The decade of the 1990s was a time of empowerment for metropolitan
planning organizations (MPOs) in transportation planning. By
strengthening the role of the larger MPOs,1 the federal Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 changed relationships
between these MPOs and the other major stakeholders in the process,
including state departments of transportation (state DOTs), transit agencies,
and local governments. The MPOs, typically represented by regional
agencies or councils of governments, had previously served a more limited
advisory role, while the other stakeholders, especially state DOTs, had larger
responsibilities for transportation planning and provision. Through ISTEA,
Congress decided that metropolitan transportation planning would best
be conducted on regional bases, with states and local governments being
AUTHORS' NOTE: This article is extracted from a three-volume study, conducted by the National Center
for Intermodal Transportation and the University of Denver's Intermodal Transportation Institute,
commissioned by the U.S. Congress. The full study can be accessed via the web at www.du.edu/transportation.
The authors wish to acknowledge the following organizations for their support on this research: the U.S.
Congress, Federal Transit Administration, Federal Highway Administration, Colorado DOT, Denver
Regional Council of Governments, City and County of Denver, Douglas County (Colorado), North Central
Texas Council of Governments, Texas DOT, Maricopa Association of Governments, Arizona DOT, Puget
Sound Regional Council, and Washington State DOT.
'The larger MPOs are designated as Transportation Management Areas (TMAs) and are those
representing metropolitan areas of greater than 200,000 population.
? Publius: The Journal of Federalism 32:1 (Winter 2002)
87

88
Publius/Winter 2002
active partners in the planning process. As might be expected, this change
in planning emphasis has not been welcomed universally. Some state DOTs
are displeased about experiencing some dilution in their decision-making
authority. This sentiment within many state DOTs (formerly state
Departments of Highways) is reinforced by large pro-highway, road-building
coalitions that generally perceive the role of MPOs in the planning process
as less friendly toward highways than the states.
Adding to the tension is the growing importance that transportation plays
in metropolitan areas, particularly those experiencing rapid population
growth. Traffic congestion, air pollution, and urban sprawl are among the
issues directly related to effective transportation provision, and in most cases,
these problems transcend local government boundaries. In light of pressing
transportation needs in many communities, fundamental changes in the
metropolitan transportation planning process elicit considerable attention.
This study seeks to assess the planning effectiveness of MPOs in large,
fast-growing metropolitan regions by sampling the views of key participants
of four MPOs-Dallas-Ft. Worth, Texas; Denver, Colorado; Phoenix, Arizona;
and Seattle, Washington.2 The study addresses issues such as need
satisfaction, funding allocation, and the quality and effectiveness of decision
processes. In gathering material for this study, 378 individuals were
interviewed (personally, by telephone, or by mail). These individuals were
participating in or observing the MPO process at all levels. They included
transportation providers, engineers, planners, citizens, and federal, state,
and local government (elected and unelected) officials. Research findings
are also based on reviewing the federal and state statutory and regulatory
foundations for MPOs, the long-range and short-range plans produced by
the MPOs, state funding allocations to the four metropolitan areas and
their interaction and cooperation with MPOs, federal certification reviews
of the MPOs, and literature addressing MPOs and the broader subjects of
transportation planning and intergovernmental relations.3
2These MPOs were, respectively, the North Central Texas Council of Governments, the Denver Regional
Council of Governments, the Maricopa Association of Governments, and Puget Sound Regional Council.
3RobertJay Dilger, "ISTEA: A New Direction for Transportation Policy," Publius: TheJournal ofFederalism
22 (Summer 1992): 67-78; Robert W. Gage and Bruce D. McDowell, "ISTEA and the Role of MPOs in the
New Transportation Environment: A Midterm Assessment," Publius: TheJournal of Federalism 25 (Summer
1995): 133-154; John Prendergast, "MPOs Become VIPs," Civil Engineering (April 1994): 40-44; Paul G.
Lewis and Mary Sprague, Federal Transportation Policy and the Role of Metropolitan Planning Organizations in
California (San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, April 1997); Ted D. Zoller and Jeffrey A.
Capizzano, "Evolution and Devolution: A National Perspective on the Changing Role of Metropolitan
Planning Organizations in Area-wide Intermodal Planning," Virginia Transportation Research Council, Report
No. VTRC 97-R19 (June 1997); Kristina Younger and Christopher O'Neill, "Making the Connection: The
Transportation Improvement Program and the Long-Range Plan," Transportation Research Record 1617,
Paper No. 98-1129 (1998): 118-121; Edward A. Mierzejewski and Margaret A. Marshall, "Review of Long-
Range Transportation Plans of Florida's Metropolitan Planning Organizations," Transportation Research
Record 1617, paper No. 98-1305 (1998): 122-129; James H. Andrews, "Metro Power," Planning 62 (June
1996): 8-12;Jack D. Helton, "Intermodal Partnerships Under ISTEA," Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council, Special Report 240 (December 1992): 138-148; Robert W. Gage, "Sector Alignments of
Regional Councils: Implications for Intergovernmental Relations in the 1990s," American Review of Public
Administration 22 (September 1992): 207-226; David Reinke and Daniel Malarkey, "Implementing Integrated

Metropolitan Planning Organizations
This analysis begins with a background discussion of federal legislative
efforts that have formalized transportation planning and empowered MPOs.
Next, survey results are presented that illustrate how planning processes
were evaluated in the four sample metropolitan areas. Finally, results are
interpreted, the characteristics of successful MPOs are identified, and
suggestions for improving transportation planning are made.
FORMALIZATION OF TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
AND EMPOWERMENT OF THE MPOs
Congress initially mandated that transportation planning be a condition of
receiving federal funds in 1962. At that time, Congress also insisted that
the planning process be continuing, comprehensive, and cooperative
(known as "3-C Planning"). The "cooperative" requirement of the 3-C
Planning process insists on cooperation between federal, state, and local
government agencies, as well as cooperation between agencies within each
order of government.
As the 43,000-mile Interstate Highway System neared completion,
congressional attention turned to alternatives to the single-occupancy vehicle
to satisfy the public's desire for mobility. Concerns about congestion, sprawl,
and pollution, all of which defy jurisdictional boundaries, emerged as
political issues. Congress also recognized that the separate and isolated
modal networks were not well linked. Seamless connectivity between modes
might allow Americans to enjoy the inherent advantages of all modes. With
a conclusion that the Interstate Highway System would not be further
expanded, transportation development would transition to a more regional,
or local, focus. Devolution of power from the federal government to the
states, the regions, and the local jurisdictions would empower institutions
closer to the people.
Enactment of ISTEA in 1991 reflected these concerns. Significantly, in
contrast to previous highway bills, it expunged the word "highway" from its
title. ISTEA provided enhanced flexibility for state and local governments
to redirect highway funds to other modes and modal connections. Most
important, for present purposes, it significantly enhanced the role of MPOs
in transportation planning by giving the larger MPOs increased authority
Transportation Planning in Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Procedural and Analytical Issues,"
Transportation Research Record 1552 (1996): 71-78; Hank Dittmar, "A Broader Context for Transportation
Planning-NotJust An End In Itself," Journal of the American Planning Association 61 (Winter 1995): 7-13;
Jotin C. Khisty, "Education and Training of Transportation Engineers and Planners Vis-a-Vis Public
Involvement," Transportation Research Record 1552 (1996): 171-176; Brigid Hynes-Cherin, "Conference
Summary," Conference on Institutional Aspects of Metropolitan Transportation Planning, Williamsburg,
VA, May 21-24, 1995, Transportation Research Circular 450 (December 1995): 37-38; Paul G. Lewis,
"Regionalism and Representation: Measuring and Assessing Representation in Metropolitan Planning
Organizations," Urban Affairs Review 33 (1998): 839-853; Seth B. Benjamin, John Kincaid, and Bruce D.
McDowell, "MPOs and Weighted Voting," Intergovernmental Perspective 20 (1994): 31-35; Anthony Downs,
"The Devolution Revolution: Why Congress Is Shifting a Lot of Power to the Wrong Levels," Brookings
Institution Policy Briefs, No. 3,July 1996; Mark Baldassare, "Regional Variations in Support for Regional
Governance," Urban Affairs Quarterly 30 (December 1994): 275-284.
89

90
Publius/Winter 2002
in project selection in consultation with their state, while requiring the state
and local transit providers to cooperate with the MPO on project selection.
Large MPOs allocate Surface Transportation Program-Metro (STP-Metro)
funds, and in some states, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)4
and Enhancement (e.g., bicycle and pedestrian) funds in "consultation"
with the state DOT. The state has jurisdiction over the National Highway
System, Bridge, Interstate Maintenance, and other Surface Transportation
Program funds, which it selects in "cooperation" with the MPO. The MPO
is required to engage in formalized planning of two types-a 20-year longrange
plan and a short-term Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
covering transportation projects to be implemented over at least a threeyear
period. The TIP must be updated at least every two years.
The 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)
reaffirmed many of ISTEA's innovations, and further enhanced the
importance of MPOs by continuing to designate specific funds over which
they have allocation responsibility. Thus, beginning in 1991, MPOs were
transformed from advisory institutions into institutions that directly
influence the distribution of money-from voluntary planning organizations
to organizations that have their fingers on some of the purse strings. It is
clear that such empowerment over money caused many local jurisdictions
to take the MPO process and their participation therein far more seriously
than they had before. For example, many local governments began to send
more senior politicians and staff to participate in MPO committees.
All this gave transportation planning a new perspective. The interstate
and inter-regional "top-down" highway planning process of the federal and
state governments, respectively, and the localized "bottom-up" street and
road planning process of the cities and counties, were coupled with a third
process-the regional one. This regional process extends beyond highways,
streets, and roads into a comprehensive transportation planning process
that takes into account all modes, as well as a number of related social,
economic, and environmental issues.
EVALUATION OF THE MPO PROCESS
In meeting their regions' long-term transportation planning needs, MPOs
use evolving processes that take on different qualities and attributes over
time. The MPOs created three decades ago were examples of what have
come to be known as "collaborative processes." These processes are being
used increasingly to bring broader groups of stakeholders together to
encourage collaborative problem-solving on larger issues of mutual concern.
There is a strong connection between the qualities of collaborative
processes and their relative successes in addressing root problems. Issues
4CMAQ fund allocation is the responsibility of the state DOT. Project selection should occur cooperatively
between the MPO and the state DOT. Historically, in Colorado, a "lump sum" has been allocated to airquality
non-attainment MPOs for project selection, and some to rural non-attainment areas for PM10 mitigation.

Metropolitan Planning Organizations
of process quality have been examined in insurance-coverage decisions,5
public hearings,6 drug testing,7 dispute resolution,8 performance appraisal,9
political processes,10 police actions,11 court trials,'2 and other contexts,
including urban planning.'3 Therefore, the assessment strategy for
examining MPO processes in this research was twofold. First, the quality of
the MPO process was examined by asking the kinds of questions typically
explored across a variety of governmental and organizational contexts when
the qualities of processes are examined. Second, questions on MPO
effectiveness that reflected specific transportation concerns were asked. The
survey instrument sought to assess these issues by collecting information on:
1. The overall quality of the MPO process.
2. The extent to which the MPO in question meets regionwide
transportation needs.
3. The extent to which the MPO meets rapidly changing
transportation needs.
4. How well the MPO and the regional transit agency work
together.
5. How well the MPO and the state department of transportation
work together.
6. How well the MPO process satisfies the respondents' needs in
the following areas:
a. Additional transportation capacity
b. Roadway construction
c. Operational/safety improvements
d. Investment in transit and bus service
5Norman Daniels andJames Sabin, "Limits to Health Care: Fair Procedure, Democratic Deliberation
and the Legitimacy Problem for Insurers," Philosophy and Public Affairs 26 (Fall 1997): 303-350.
6Kathryn D. Rettig, Vicky Chiu-Wan Tam, and Beth Maddock Magistad, "Using Matched Pairs in
Modified Analytic Induction in ExaminingJustice Principles in Child Support Guidelines," The Methods
and Methodologies of Qualitative Family Research, eds. Marvin B. Sussman and Jane F. Gilgun (New York:
Haworth Press, 1996), pp. 193-222.
7Mary A. Konovsky and Russell Cropanzano, "Perceived Fairness of Employee Drug Testing as a
Predictor of Employee Attitudes and Job Performance," Journal of Applied Psychology 76 (October 1991):
698-707.
8jeanne M. Brett, "Commentary on ProceduralJustice Papers," Research on Negotiation in Organizations,
eds. RoyJ. Lewicki, Max H. Bazerman, and Blair H. Sheppard, Vol. 1 (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1986),
pp. 81-90.
9Robert Folger and Mary A. Konovsky, "Effects of Procedural and DistributiveJustice on Reactions to
Pay Raise Decisions," Academy of ManagementJournal 32 (March 1989): 115-130.
?Tom R. Tyler and Peter De Goey, "Collective Restraint in Social Dilemmas: Procedural Justice and
Social Identification Effects on Support for Authorities," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69
(September 1995): 482-497.
"Tom R. Tyler and Robert Folger, "Distributional and Procedural Aspects of Satisfaction with Citizen-
Police Encounters," Basic and Applied Social Psychology 1 (December 1980): 281-292.
'2E. Allan Lind, Carol T. Kulik, and Maureen Ambrose, "Individual and Corporate Dispute Resolution:
Using Procedural Fairness as a Decision Heuristic," Administrative Science Quarterly 38 (June 1993): 224-251.
'"Scott Campbell, "Green Cities, Growing Cities,Just Cities? Urban Planning and the Contradictions
of Sustainable Development," Journal of the American Planning Association 62 (Summer 1996): 296-312.
91

92
e. Investment in bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
7. The fairness of the TIP criteria.
8. The fairness of the MPO process overall.
Publius/Winter 2002
9. The extent to which the institutional structure and decisional
process in the MPO meet the long-term transportation needs of
the region.
To collect data on both the quality and the effectiveness of MPO processes,
three measurement strategies were followed: (1) face-to-face interviews to
collect more in-depth, open-ended responses to questions, (2) mail
questionnaires to collect more quantitative effectiveness ratings of various
aspects of the MPO process, and (3) a 15-item attitude scale to collect more
reliable and sensitive overall evaluations of the quality of the given MPO
process.
The primary data for this research were collected from respondents in
the four target locations: Dallas-Ft.Worth, Denver, Phoenix, and Seattle. A
total of 378 respondents provided the data-121 in Dallas-Ft.Worth, 81 in
Denver, 94 in Phoenix, and 82 in Seattle. All these interviewees were
individuals involved in or affected by the MPO transportation planning
process. A stratified random-sampling approach
was used to create
comparable samples across the four MPOs for the interviews, based on the
following categories (and numbers) of participants:
1. Directors and executive directors from major transportation
agencies (9): Current and recent leaders from the MPO, state
DOT, and transit agencies.
2. MPO board of directors (7): Representation reflecting mem-
bers from central cities, inner suburbs, outer suburbs, counties,
small towns, and separate urbanized areas, if appropriate.
3. MPO technical committee (7): Representation reflecting mem-
bers from central cities, inner suburbs, outer suburbs, counties,
small towns, and separate urbanized areas, if appropriate.
4. MPO policy committee (7): MPO board members not previously
selected, and representatives from environmental, freight,
air-quality, and business communities.
5. State transportation commissioner (1): representing the metropolitan
area.
6. Transit board member (1).
7. MPO staff (2).
8. State DOT staff (2).
9. Transit agency staff (2).

Metropolitan Planning Organizations
10. Regional air-quality council representative (1).
11. State air-pollution control division representative (1).
12. State legislature representative (1).
13. Governor's staff (1).
14. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (1): Division office
representative.
15. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) (1): Division office representative.
These selected individuals, who formed the base-line samples, were all
interviewed directly, while the remaining individuals from the relevant
populations each received a mail questionnaire. All respondents, those
interviewed and those who received mail questionnaires, completed the
15-item attitude scale.
In response to the overall question, "How good is the MPO process?"
answers depend, in part, on how similar the MPOs are. If the MPOs are
very similar, they can be characterized as a group, and conclusions can be
reached about the group as a whole. If the MPOs are very different, then
the answer to most questions will be "it depends on which MPO you are
talking about."
Table 1
Quality and Effectiveness Ratings for MPOs by Location
Dallas Denver Phoenix Seattle Totala
1. Quality of process
2. Regional needs met
3. Rapidly changing needs met
4. Works well with transit agencies
5. Works well with state DOT
4.51b
5.11'
5.01c
5.09c
5.03d
3.98
4.25
3.54
4.09
4.00
3.73
3.96
3.73
4.55
3.93
4.35b
4.37
3.93
4.35
4.46d
4.16
4.59
4.33
4.71
4.53
6. Satisfy capacity needs 4.48e 3.29 3.59 3.92 4.02
7. Satisfy roadway construction needs 4.52e
8. Satisfy operational and safety needs 4.65c
9. Satisfy investment in bus service 4.62c
10. Satisfy investment in bike/ped facilities 4.39f
11. TIP criteria are fair (1-8) 6.34g
12. MPO process is fair (1-8) 6.71'
13. MPO meets long-term needs 5.02C
3.46
3.78
3.46
3.74
5.55
5.43
3.83
3.65
3.73
3.27
3.69
4.84
4.76
3.63
3.93
3.92
3.92
4.04
5.31
5.46
4.15
4.07
4.19
4.02
4.07
5.71
5.86
4.38
aUnless otherwise indicated, scales represent means ranging from 1-6, with 6 as highest.
bDallas and Seattle are significantly different at .05 level from Phoenix and Denver.
'Dallas is significantly different at .05 level from Denver, Phoenix, and Seattle.
dDallas is significantly different at .05 level from Denver, Phoenix, and Seattle; Seattle is
significantly different at .05 level from Phoenix.
eDallas is significantly different at .05 level from Denver and Phoenix.
'Dallas is significantly different at .05 level from Phoenix.
gDallas is significantly different at .05 level from Phoenix and Seattle.
93

94
Publius/Winter 2002
With the above caution in mind, the MPOs as a group can be
characterized (see Table 1). On both the process-quality measures and the
effectiveness ratings, an attitude scale of one to six was generally used. The
average ratings given the MPOs tend to fall between the low to mid-fours,
reflecting moderately positive ratings. On the questionnaires, MPOs as a
group scored highest on working well with the regional transit agencies
(4.71), meeting regional needs (4.59), and working well with state DOTs
(4.53). The lowest scores were for satisfying additional transportation
capacity needs (4.02), investment in transit and bus service (4.02), and
investment in bicycle and pedestrian facilities (4.07). Many of the
evaluations indicated that the MPOs performed well, given limited resources.
A similar pattern of moderately positive responses for the MPOs as a
group continues through the open-ended questions asked in the interviews
(see Tables 2-6). When asked, "Do the elected officials in the MPO process
reflect the needs of the metropolitan area as a whole, or do they focus on
the organizations they represent?" respondents are evenly split between
emphasizing regional needs or local needs, at 41 percent apiece. Fewer
than half (45 percent) of the respondents believe that their MPO is able to
meet rapidly changing transportation needs. Most people feel that the
MPO works well with the regional transit agency. The interview respondents
are more evenly split on whether the MPO works well with the state DOT. A
majority of the respondents (58 percent) indicated that the state DOT's
process for allocating transportation dollars is worse than the MPO's process.
Only 37 percent of respondents, however, felt that the MPO institutional
structure and decisional process were meeting the long-term transportation
needs of the region either very well or adequately.
Table 2
Do the Elected Officials in the MPO Process Reflect the Needs of the Metropolitan Area
as a Whole, or do they Focus on the Interests of the Organizations they Represent?
DFW DEN SEA PHO Total
1. Meeting Both Regional andLocal Needs 15% 15% 30% 9% 17%
2. Meeting Regional Needs 70 17 38 6 27
3. Meeting Regional Needs with Exceptions 10 19 11 15 14
4. Meeting Local Needs with Exceptions 5 30 11 24 20
5. Meeting Local Needs 0 19 8 47 21
Table 3
How Well do the MPO and the Regional Transit Agency Work Together?
DFW DEN SEA PHO Total
1. Excellent 66% 11% 35% 17% 27%
2. Good 0 26 39 20 24
3. Fair 10 45 16 31 30
4. Poor 0 9 3 14 8
5. Other 24 8 8 17 12

Metropolitan Planning Organizations
Table 4
How Well do the MPO and the State Department of Transportation Work Together?
DFW DEN SEA PHO Total
1. Excellent 67% 2% 41% 6% 22%
2. Good 24 15 27 17 20
3. Fair 10 36 24 37 30
4. Poor 0 43 3 37 25
5. Other 0 4 5 3 3
Table 5
Do You Think the Process Used by the State Department of Transportation to Allocate
Transportation Dollars is Better or Worse than the MPO Process?
DFW DEN SEA PHO Total
1. Better 9% 19% 11% 22% 16%
2. Neither 32 9 24 14 17
3. Worse: state is more political 36 30 32 19 29
4. Worse: state lacks regional focus 14 20 24 17 19
5. Worse: ambiguous criteria 5 9 11 14 10
6. Other 5 13 0 14 9
Table 6
To What Extent do you Believe the Institutional Structure and Decisional Process in this
MPO Meets the Long-Term Transportation Needs of this Region?
DFW DEN SEA PHO Total
1. Very well/well without qualifiers 77% 8% 29% 13% 24%
2. Adequately to well with qualifiers 5 18 10 13 13
3. Funding limitations 5 13 24 8 13
4. Difficulty in managing all interests 5 7 10 18 10
adequately or effectively
5. Inappropriate focus 5 16 2 16 11
6. Structural/authority problems 0 26 5 11 14
7. Not at all 0 8 5 13 7
8. Other 5 5 14 8 8
Respondents were also asked to recall and describe specific experiences
with the MPO that resulted in their thinking, "This is a good process; it's
fair; it works." The respondents discussed the quality of the funding
allocation decisions; fair and equitable decision-making in the application
of TIP criteria; cooperative efforts consistent with a regional approach to
planning; an open process in which all participants are informed; the
responsiveness of the MPO to individual interests; and a professional,
competent, approachable MPO staff. Respondents reported that positive
experiences with the MPO occurred far more frequently than negative
experiences. In fact, 88 percent of the respondents stated that negative
experiences with the MPO occurred only "several times per year" or "almost
never," while positive experiences occurred more frequently.
95

96
Publius/Winter 2002
Another consistent pattern, and perhaps a more telling result, indicated
that in assessing how well the MPO process is working, a great deal depends
on which MPO one is talking about. With respect to the quality of process
and effectiveness ratings, substantial and significant differences among the
MPOs were present, as statistical analyses disclosed (see Table 1). The most
striking difference is that Dallas-Ft.Worth ranked consistently and
significantly higher than the other MPOs across all indicators. In fact, the
Dallas-Ft.Worth MPO may be considered as engaging in "best practices"
among this sample of MPOs. Scores for Dallas ranged from the mid-fours
to the low-fives (on a six-point scale) while scores for Denver and Phoenix
ranged from the mid-threes to the low fours. Scores for Seattle were a little
higher, ranging from the high-threes to the mid-fours. Dallas scored highest
on meeting regional needs (5.11), working well with the regional transit
agencies (5.09), and having a fair MPO process (6.71 on an 8-point scale).
A similar, but even more striking, pattern was revealed in the open-ended
questions. A strong majority (70 percent) of respondents
from Dallas-Ft.
Worth felt that their MPO was meeting regional needs as opposed to local
needs, compared to 38 percent for Seattle, 17 percent for Denver, and 6
percent for Phoenix. In regard to the MPO working well with the regional
transit agencies, 66 percent of respondents from Dallas rated this relationship
as "excellent," compared to 35 percent for Seattle, 17 percent for Phoenix,
and 11 percent for Denver. An even starker contrast was found for the MPOstate
DOT relationship; 67 percent of Dallas respondents rated this
relationship as "excellent," compared to 41 percent for Seattle, 6 percent for
Phoenix, and just 2 percent for Denver. When judging
whether the MPO
meets the long-term transportation planning needs of the region, Dallas-
Ft.Worth respondents placed the MPO in the highest category of meeting
needs ("without qualifiers") 77 percent of the time. Other respondents were
much less effusive in rating their MPO in the highest category-Seattle (29
percent), Phoenix (13 percent), and Denver (8 percent).
Additional interview questions revealed that when participants described
experiences that led them to believe the MPO process was working well, and
that it was a good and fair process, Dallas-Ft.Worth participants reported
such experiences occurring more frequently than the others. When
respondents described experiences which led them to believe that the process
was not working, not a good process, or not a fair process, both Dallas-
Ft.Worth and Seattle participants reported such experiences less often.
In summary, the overall pattern of responses indicated a moderately positive
assessment of the MPOs by their participants, but there was a wide range
across the MPOs. Dallas-Ft. Worth was rated consistently and significantly
higher than either Denver or Phoenix. Seattle's ratings were generally between
the two groupings. The results were relatively uniform across the various
samples of participants; no distinctive patterns by types of respondents were

Metropolitan Planning Organizations
identified. On the basis of this process of quality and effectiveness evaluation,
several interpretations can be drawn and certain characteristics of successful
MPOs can be identified, as the next section indicates.
INTERPRETATIONS OF RESULTS AND CHARACTERISTICS
OF SUCCESSFUL MPOs
Explanations of Success
The patterns we have found so far might be accounted for by any number
of plausible explanations, such as:
Money. Dallas-Ft.Worth has strikingly positive ratings. If the North Central
Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) receives considerably more
resources than the other comparison MPOs, it might follow that its
constituents would be more positive about the quality and effectiveness of
its process. To conjecture along these lines seems reasonable, given the
rich history of Texas and its influential citizens in national and state politics.
So it is reasonable to presume that abundant resources might make people
generally more happy with an allocation process, and to ask whether the
NCTCOG has more resources relative to the other comparison MPOs.
Accordingly, analyses were conducted of the total funding and percentage
of funding received from the states by the Dallas, Denver, Phoenix, and
Seattle MPO regions in comparison to percentages of funds generated,
population, vehicle-miles traveled (VMT), and lane-miles attributed to each
MPO region in each state (see Table 7). The Dallas-Ft. Worth and Seattle
regions received percentages of state and federal funds that their states
allocate which compared favorably with their regional shares based on the
comparison measures. In contrast, Denver and Phoenix received
percentages of state and federal funds allocated by their states that are
considerably less than percentages based on the comparative measures.
Table 7
State Funding to MPO Regions Compared to Proxy Measures
MPO Region %Revenue %Revenue %Lane
Received Generated %Pop %VMT Miles
Dallas 24 NA 22 25 13
Denver 34 51 56 51 17
Phoenix 28 48 59 51 31
Seattle 55 59 55 52 22
Source: Paul Stephen Dempsey, Andrew R. Goetz, and Carl Larson, Metropolitan Planning
Organizations: An Assessment of the Transportation Planning Process, A Report to Congress
(Denver, CO: University of Denver Intermodal Transportation Institute and the National
Center for Intermodal Transportation, March 2000), Volume 3, Section 6, p. 17.
97

98
Publius/Winter 2002
These results suggest that, at least with respect to our limited sample of
four large MPOs, there may be a correlation between the share of funding
received from the state and the level of satisfaction in meeting regional
transportation needs expressed by the survey respondents. Dallas and Seattle
were the highest rated MPOs; they also received higher percentages of state
and federal funding in relation to revenue generated, population, VMT, or
lane miles. Conversely, Denver and Phoenix were rated lower, and received
much lower percentages of state and federal funding. Given that the MPO's
relationship with the state is important to the success of metropolitan
transportation planning, it is reasonable to suggest that level of funding
from the state to the MPO is a relevant factor. It is inappropriate, however,
to establish this conclusion on only four cases; further analyses across
additional cases would be necessary to test this hypothesis appropriately.
Furthermore, just as it is unclear whether the chicken or the egg came
first, it is unclear whether percentage of funding is a primary causal factor
in MPO satisfaction ratings, or whether other factors that result in higher
MPO ratings also result in greater funding percentages. It is probable that
both are occurring, whereby more funding translates into a perception of a
better MPO process, and the perception of a better MPO process translates
into more funding. As other results from this study reveal, several factors,
in addition to funding amounts, are important in assessing how well MPOs
perform their transportation planning functions.
Severity and Complexity of Problems. It might be reasonable to assume that
the differences in perceived quality and effectiveness of processes are at
least partially a function of the complexity and severity of the problems
confronted by the different MPOs. The more difficult the problems
confronted by the MPOs, it might be argued, the less satisfied its members
are likely to be with how effectively the MPO deals with the problems. To
be sure, the problems confronted by all four of these MPOs are daunting,
but to believe that the problems confronted by Dallas-Ft.Worth are less
complex and severe than those of the other MPOs seems unwarranted. The
Dallas-Ft. Worth region is the largest of the four comparison MPOs, with a
population of 4.3 million. It is composed of 16 counties and 231 member
governments, many more members than the other MPOs.14 Like the others,
its air-quality problems constrain its planning and its allocation. Even if the
next MPO with a set of problems as complex and severe as Dallas-Ft. Worth
is considered, it might very well be Seattle. Therefore, it seems unlikely
that the patterns in the results are attributable to less severe and complex
problems in Dallas-Ft.Worth or Seattle.
The Rate of Growth. It is conceivable that lower quality and effectiveness
ratings in Phoenix and Denver are associated with very rapid rates of growth.
More rapid growth might be expected to create a greater sense of urgency
4Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, 1999 Profiles of Metropolitan Planning Organizations
(Washington, DC: Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, 1999).

Metropolitan Planning Organizations
in responding to transportation needs. Given that MPO structures and
processes are designed to respond more to the long-term transportation
planning needs of a region, the sense of urgency promoted by rapid growth
seems antithetical to the purposes and functions of MPOs. Inspection of
population growth rates for the four metropolitan areas from 1990 to 1997
reveals some support for this explanation. The Phoenix metropolitan area
grew by 26.9 percent during this period, and Denver grew by 17.1 percent.
The Dallas-Ft. Worth region experienced a 16.8 percent growth rate, while
Seattle's growth was a little slower at 11.6 percent.15
Other plausible explanations can be offered for our findings. Some of
the more reasonable explanations have been offered by the respondents in
the different MPOs.
Characteristics
of Successful MPO Processes
Emerging out of these explanations were certain patterns that suggested
the key characteristics of successful MPO processes.
Effective Leadership. The most successful MPOs appear to have leaders
with the ability to achieve progressive collaboration and to build consensus
among individuals with diverse interests, and to fashion regional solutions
to common problems. An important component of effective collaborative
leadership is to enhance the credibility of the process and the comfort level
of the member governments with the MPO. The collaborative process of
decision making, where neither the problems nor the solutions are clear, is
difficult, and requires a special type of leadership.
The survey results indicated a very strong acknowledgement of important
leadership qualities on the part of the MPO transportation directors in both
Dallas-Ft.Worth and Seattle. This is especially true in the case of Michael
Morris of NCTCOG. Almost everyone interviewed in this MPO mentioned
Morris by name, and his leadership as an important factor in this very highly
evaluated MPO. Morris was acknowledged for his ability to help NCTCOG
members set aside an individual agenda and individual differences and to
concentrate on the long-term transportation planning needs of the region.
His leadership was seen as instrumental in helping some of the divisiveness
and narrowness of perspective that characterized the MPO approximately
nine years ago.
In Denver and Phoenix, recent changes in leadership have the potential
to bring about changes in the quality and effectiveness of the process. The
most recent change, in Denver, has generated some optimism about the
potential for changes in the MPO process.
MPOs are collaborative structures. They were created to promote
collaborative problem solving on issues of common concern that transcend
parochial, short-term interests. Successful collaboration requires a different
'U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, State and Metropolitan Area Data Book, 1997-98
(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1998).
99

100
Publius/Winter 2002
set of leadership skills and capacities than those associated with traditional
politics and positional authority. The right combination of leadership
attitudes, skills, and capacities can be the most important determinant of
whether successful collaboration, or effective regional transportation
planning, can occur. Before selecting leaders, MPOs should engage
assessment centers to evaluate the collaborative leadership qualities of
potential candidates. Once leaders have been selected, they should also be
encouraged to improve their leadership skills by pursuing professional
education opportunities.
MPO Staff Competence and Credibility. The most successful MPOs employ
staffs with high levels of technical competence and expertise, able to assist
the state DOT and member governments in transportation data collection,
modeling, planning, and other technical assistance. MPOs need to nurture
leadership and communications skills and credibility in a competent staff
with highly developed technical expertise.
The Dallas-Ft.Worth MPO was seen as having a staff that is unusually
competent. They are seen as having well-developed technical skills. They
also are seen as having many planning tools and being very good at
forecasting. Their advice is sought by other agencies and organizations, as
well as by other professional planners outside the MPO staff. This technical
competence and credibility seems to allow the MPO staff to function "above
the politics" and at the level of a valued resource on technical issues.
Developing a large, highly competent technical staff seems to be a deliberate
long-term strategic plan of the MPO's leadership.
A technically competent, highly credible staff is one of the most important
attributes of an MPO. If the staff are accurate forecasters, have useful
planning models, and are sought out by state, county, and local governments
for assistance on difficult technical problems, there are clear consequences.
More of the physical and intellectual energy of the MPO staff goes into
regional transportation planning issues. The energy of the staff is less likely
to be diverted into less productive political issues. MPOs would benefit
from substantially increased resources devoted to developing and sustaining
high levels of competence among MPO staff. Therefore, a staff development
program could be created, or an existing program identified. Specific
reward and/or incentive systems could be implemented by the MPO to
encourage both increased commitment of the MPO staff to sustain
professional development and increased capacity of the MPOs to retain
their most competent staff.
Aggressive Public Involvement Programs. The most successful MPOs
recognize the importance of, and are aggressive in pursuing, public
involvement in shaping priorities for the region. Meaningful public
participation in the MPO process enhances the acceptance and support of
the transportation projects in the region, and enhances the ability of the

Metropolitan Planning Organizations
region to compete successfully for state funds. Performance goals and
funding priorities should result from an inclusive, open, transparent, and
fair planning process.
The Dallas-Ft. Worth MPO seems to be noticeably more successful in
creating and sustaining a program that emphasizes public involvement,
strategic partnership, and other aspects of what is described as a very open
process. These outreach efforts take noteworthy forms. In the MPO's
relationship with the state DOT, the MPO is asked to select the projects for
a state program (urban streets). Public involvement is extended to the
point where both Dallas and Ft. Worth have citizen groups that have formed
both to monitor and support the MPO's efforts. An open and credible
process seems to have been created by the leadership and participants of
the NCTCOG.
The aggressive position on public involvement goes beyond mandated
public hearings. Successful MPOs:
* aggressively form partnerships with citizen groups;
* encourage stakeholder groups concerned about transportation
issues (e.g., chambers of commerce and land-use organizations)
to become involved in advocating their transportation priori-
ties;
* provide informational briefings and dialogues with transporta-
tion committees of their state legislature, state transportation
commissions, local transit providers, municipal leagues, and
county organizations for purposes of informing them of, and
building consensus on, needs and priorities;
* publicize the work they do in addressing transportation and air-
quality problems; and
* respond promptly to inquiries and complaints.
101
RegionalEthos. One of the difficult MPO objectives is to create a regional
ethos among their elected representatives. The survey findings reveal that
elected officials among the four MPOs are divided between emphasizing
regional or local needs. In Dallas, 70 percent of respondents indicated
that elected officials in the MPO process emphasized regional needs as
opposed to local needs. This contrasted sharply with results from Denver
and Phoenix, which indicated more parochial behavior. In Phoenix, 71
percent of respondents indicated that participants in the MPO process put
their local concerns ahead of regional needs. When asked to identify the
one change they believed would improve the MPO process, the largest
number of respondents in Denver identified adoption of a more cooperative,
regional approach.

102 Publius/Winter 2002
MPOs could consider several structural means of promoting a more
regional approach among their members, including:
* Having each county represented on its board and all key
committees (it should be made clear that counties have a
responsibility to represent the transportation interests of both
unincorporated areas and incorporated municipalities within
their boundaries);16
*
Having at-large or regionally elected members of the public serve
on their board;17
*
Having seats on its executive board and committees filled by
members who represent clusters of similarly situatedjurisdictions
(e.g., small suburban towns, counties, central city, inner suburbs,
outer suburbs, transportation providers, environmental
advocates, and the public at large);18 and
*
Staffing a modest intergovernmental affairs office to assist the
MPO in improving communications and relations with local
governments and the state.
Streamlined, Efficient Process. Among the criticisms leveled at the MPO
planning and project-selection process is that it can be unduly cumbersome,
time-consuming, and laborious.19 Among items to be considered in MPO
restructuring should be elimination of duplicative committees, reducing
their size, instituting formalized freight planning,20 establishing a General
Assembly of all members, creating an empowered and representative
executive board,2' clarifying their mission and role, and instituting full-
"Each county in the Dallas/Ft. Worth MPO region is represented on the Regional Transportation
Council, with the number of seats varying by population; representatives on the commission are selected
by county judges.
7As an example, up to three citizen representatives on the Dallas/Ft. Worth MPO Regional Transportation
Council may be appointed by the mayor of Dallas; one may be appointed by the mayor of Ft. Worth.
'"For example, the Dallas/Ft. Worth MPO Regional Transportation Council has a number of seats dedicated
to clusters of cities, with mayors of the cities collectively designating their representative to the commission.
'For example, in Denver, among the most frequent improvements that respondents called for was
that DRCOG should streamline its decisional process to eradicate unnecessary complexity.
2"In order to assure the process is adequately inclusive, MPOs should reassess their committee structures
to ensure that all leaders, staff, and stakeholders required to be included by TEA-21 are adequately
represented in the transportation planning process. In particular, the interests of passenger transportation
may be dominating decision-making at the expense of freight interests. The interest of common carriers
should be accommodated in a more formalistic and structured way, such as creation of an intermodal
roundtable (as in Seattle) or having formal representation of common carriers on its transportation
policy committee (as in Denver).
2'Though in Denver, a 49-member board assures that all jurisdictions may participate, it creates a
governing body that may simply be too large to be efficient. Moreover, as noted above, having seats
representing clusters of similarly situated jurisdictions may enhance regionalism over parochialism.
DRCOG could resolve this problem by amending its articles of association to create a General Assembly
of universal membership, and a representative executive board. For example, Seattle's MPO has a General
Assembly of general membership of all voting members, and a smaller (21-member) executive board
comprised of representatives of counties, cities, and towns, appointed by the local jurisdictions they
represent, and whose seats and votes are reconsidered every three years based on current population
data. The General Assembly meets at least annually to review and ratify key decisions of the board.
Similarly, the North Central Texas Council of Governments has a General Assembly comprised of all 220+
members, which elects an 11-member executive board (comprised of nine local elected officials and two
regional citizens), which endorses the transportation planning documents and policies approved by the
37-member Regional Transportation Council.

Metropolitan Planning Organizations
103
time weighted voting (as in Dallas and Seattle).22
An MPO's basic committee structure should be simplified to facilitate
the achievement of consensus on key policy and technical issues. There
should be one committee making decisions regarding transportation plans
and programs, and one committee providing technical advice to the policy
committee and providing oversight for technical activities of MPO staff.
Other committees (e.g., citizens' advisory, freight users/shippers) should
be organized to report to either of these two or both, and all committees
and subcommittees should be structured to eliminate overlap in members
and responsibilities as much as possible.
Cooperative Relationship with the State DOT. The most successful MPOs
engage their state DOT in a cooperative and collaborative decisional process.
In Dallas-Ft. Worth, 67 percent of respondents rated this relationship
"excellent"; in Denver, only 2 percent did. Both the MPO and the state
DOT must strive to achieve greater cooperation and collaboration. For
example, the TIP and long-range plan criteria should be developed in a
comprehensive format not only to accommodate projects proposed by local
governments but also to assess state-proposed projects fairly. Thus,
transportation projects in the metropolitan region proposed by the state
DOT and local governments should be assessed by the same criteria in both
the TIP and the long-range plan. The state DOT should have a seat on all
key MPO committees. The MPOs and state DOT should consider exchanges
or assignments of staff to be housed in the other agency, and also a regular,
substantive meeting schedule among the principals. Presumably, improved
relationships can eventually produce joint recommendations as a regular
occurrence.
Land Use. This research reveals the importance of integrating land-use,
air-quality, and transportation planning. Because transportation issues are
intertwined with land-use issues, the MPOs should develop a cooperative
process with the state and local jurisdictions to coordinate transportation
and land-use plans and programs. An MPO should serve as a forum for the
planning directors of the region to coordinate their land-use and
transportation plans. Such coordination would not only enhance mobility
and result in a superior allocation of the public's resources, but also would
improve the quality of life in the metropolitan area. In developing TIP criteria,
special attention should be given to the needs of rapidly growing regions, to
accommodate population and demand trends in each planning cycle.
Accountability. The most successful MPOs hire and retain staff members
that have the confidence of their membership. Such staff must be
accountable to the elected officials and public members who comprise the
22Some MPOs, such as DRCOG, have "on demand" weighted voting. This places political strain on
any jurisdiction that might want to call for it. Full-time weighted voting would eliminate this stigma.
Because it is more democratic, full-time weighted voting may also enhance the perception of fairness in
the decisional process, and give it added legitimacy. To ensure the interests of the minority are protected,
super-majority voting may be required for particularly important decisions.

104
Publius/Winter 2002
MPO. Real decision-making power in an MPO must rest with its officers
and committee members because the MPO exists to serve the regional needs
of its constituents-the state and local government institutions and the public.
Some organizational structures may be more conducive to promoting
accountability. In Seattle, 35 percent of the funds allocated by the MPO
are given to the counties to be distributed according to a process managed
by the counties. As already noted, the long-standing concern about MPOs
is the extent to which they are able to respond to the felt needs of their
members. Involving subsets of members (i.e., counties as in Seattle) in
creating processes for and recommending projects to the MPO is a direct
response to this nagging issue. Dallas-Ft.Worth has an independent Regional
Transportation Council consisting of elected officials, some of whom are
citizen representatives. These elected officials are described as more
"problem focused" and less political. These are some of the differences as
seen in the infrastructures that might help explain the findings concerning
differences among MPOs.
MPOs should engage in periodic self-assessment that involves their
leaders, staff, and stakeholders in evaluating how well they are performing,
how they might improve their process, and how they might improve their
relationships with constituents and other organizations, particularly the state
DOT.23 Working cooperatively in a nonpartisan way, all the actors in the
metropolitan transportation planning process (state and local officials)
should establish objective criteria, which should be used to periodically
(e.g., every three years at the time of a federal planning certification review)
perform an objective performance evaluation. MPOs should invite objective
and candid peer review or other outside review of their procedures,
processes, and work products. Retreats headed by competent outside
facilitators might bring in experts to elucidate "best practices" in MPO
organization and performance. The MPO executive board should monitor
the performance of the executive director in an annual performance-based
salary process. In turn, the executive director should establish an internal
review process to evaluate the performance of the MPO staff, in an annual
performance-based salary review, for example.24 Orientation and training
programs should also be developed for elected officials, particularly those
new to the MPO, to educate them as to the process and procedures of MPO
transportation planning and allocation.
CONCLUSION
The role of MPOs in transportation planning grew significantly during the
1990s. Previously serving mostly an advisory role, the largest MPOs are now
23Because each federal transportation funding bill includes new policy and procedural mandates,
periodic analysis should be performed, not less than once every such funding cycle.
24These recommendations reflect the fact that MPOs are constituted of elected and appointed officials,
as designated by the governor and local officials. The staff provides the information the MPO itself needs
to make decisions on federally required plans and programs.

Metropolitan Planning Organizations
105
supposed to be the lead agencies responsible for transportation planning
in their regions. These MPOs also have control over some categories of
federal planning funds that have increased their power in the process.
This enhanced role has placed additional pressures on MPOs as
transportation provision becomes ever more critical, especially for rapidly
growing metropolitan areas. There is considerable skepticism about whether
MPOs are "up to the task" of effective transportation planning and project
selection. This study sought to address this concern by conducting survey
research that assessed MPO-participant perceptions of the quality and
effectiveness of the MPO transportation planning process in four rapidly
growing metropolitan areas.
The overall pattern of survey responses indicates a moderately positive
assessment of the MPOs by their participants. There is, however, a broad
range of responses across the four MPOs. Dallas-Ft. Worth and Seattle rank
significantly higher than Denver and Phoenix. The Dallas-Ft. Worth MPO,
in particular, is substantially and significantly higher in its rated effectiveness,
across a wide range of criteria, and may be considered as engaging in "best
practices" among this sample of MPOs. Factors that characterized successful
MPOs included effective leadership, staff competence and credibility,
development of a regional ethos, meaningful public involvement, a
cooperative relationship with the state DOT, streamlined and efficient
processes, integrated land-use planning, and accountability.
This research has shown that (1) MPOs can be successful in forging
collaborative relationships among key actors that result in what respondents
perceive as effective regional transportation planning, but that (2) MPOs
vary considerably in their ability to coordinate regional transportation
planning. Some MPOs are much farther along in developing the skills and
characteristics necessary for successful processes.