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, AICPALBond@cutr.usf.edu (813) 974-9779

Jeff Kramer, AICPKramer@cutr.usf.edu(813) 974-1397

Look for the report in November