UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE
MEASURING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS
FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
by
David A. Beauchamp
An Analytical Paper Submitted to the Public Management Faculty of the
School of Urban Affairs and Public Policy in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Public Administration
Newark, Delaware
May 2009
MEASURING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS
FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
by
David A. Beauchamp
Approved: _______________________________________________
Dr. Robert Warren, PhD
Professor, Chairperson of Analytical Report Committee
Approved: _______________________________________________
Mr. Edward J. O’Donnell, AICP
Policy Scientist/Instructor, Member of Analytical Report Committee
Approved: _______________________________________________
James P. Flynn, Ed.D.
Assistant Professor, Director of MPA Program
II
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1
Chapter 1: The Inception and Evolution of MPOs.................................................. 5
Chapter 2: Structure, Organization, and Fiscal Responsibilities of MPOs ....... 15
Chapter 3: WILMAPCO Organization, Professional Publications and .................
Technical Analysis..................................................................................................... 23
Chapter 4: WILMAPCO and Citizen Involvement............................................... 41
Discussion ................................................................................................................... 47
Bibliography............................................................................................................... 50
III
Introduction
In this study, Metropolitan Planning Organizations will be examined in their
traditional historical role, as well as how they may or may not have fulfilled current
transportation planning needs. Other aspects that will be covered are the wide diversity
and differences they have among their sizes, budgets, boards and structure. An important
article that will be brought up will be James F. Wolf’s piece on the different ways to
categorize the various functions and outputs of MPOs. His article provides a number of
useful themes to illustrate the importance of MPOs to transportation and local
governments. The second half will be devoted to a case-study on the Wilmington Area
Planning Council (WILMAPCO) a local MPO that happens to be both multi-county and
multi-state. WILMAPCO will be analyzed for the purposes of offering insight into the
present workings of an MPO, in order to provide an example of their complexity and range
of authority.
The state of the transportation system is one that has and will continue to
experience an ongoing flux. The country as well has changed, with the participation of the
government in regulating markets, setting up national mandates and financially restoring
bankrupt entities as well as the privatizing of former public systems. Additionally, there is
what appears to be the onset of a movement towards “green policies”. The current larger
societal factors in the U.S. have implications for transportation on the local, state and
national levels. The prospect of new, fundamental changes within the nation’s
1
transportation network will no doubt be met with a mixture of rejoice and skepticism. The
country has witnessed an overall decline in its infrastructure. The American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE) has given roads in the U.S. a grade of D- for 2009. Additionally,
there are aging mass transit systems that are now suffering the burden that comes from a
lack of maintenance: ASCE gave rail in America a grade of C- for 2009
(http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/, 4/2/2009). The general state of affairs for
transportation in the U.S. could largely be categorized as one of disrepair and natural
deterioration. While some citizens bemoan what they see as the impending interjection of
government to issue sweeping reform on transportation networks, others such as
environmentalists and transit professionals will be more than receptive. While it is almost
a certainty that real change in transportation will only occur with an inevitable tax increase,
there also is the possibility of overall improvement in lifestyle, individual health and the
environment.
The fundamental truth is that the quality and availability of America’s
transportation network has a direct impact on the lives of its citizens. Whether it is the
new light rail that decreases the need for an automobile, transit oriented development that
provides more logical road-networking, or simply the construction of a new sidewalk for
pedestrians—all transportation issues affect the lives of Americans. Indeed, in this very
mobile, rapidly changing society the need for smart transportation linkages, systems and
development is paramount to the success of the nation. In this last regard, the economic
success is certainly only viable with a smart, efficient transit structure. The positive
ecological impact, some may argue, is an even more important byproduct of a more
evolved transportation system. While there exist many debates over the importance of the
2
environment and how much attention needs to be paid toward the affect of human activity
on it—there are increasing amounts of individuals who strongly tout its relevance. The
nation has entered an age where environmentalism will become a new force—provided
that the Obama Administration follows through with its promises on this issue. The
Administration and the design of a new transportation network will become directly
correlated with the health of the environment. As previously mentioned, to some the idea
that an improved transit system will help the ecosystem is irrelevant—they may simply
want a way to save on gas money or cut their daily commute time in half.
After decaying infrastructure, a weak national economy and an increasingly toxic
environment has been analyzed and weighed as to which merits the most attention, a
solution can be reached. Transportation and its various networks within the country can be
improved upon and changed by the use of government. While it seems to be a national
referendum to fix highways, bridges, and mass transit systems, it is ultimately the regions
and localities that have a keener understanding of these problems. Those who are in closer
proximity to the issues are most likely to be the ones with the expertise and desire to make
the improvements. The need for an organization or body of government to ensure that
localized transportation issues are addressed was born out of this revelation. In 1962, the
Federal Government issued an initiative providing that all “urbanized areas” or
“contiguous areas of urban settlement with a population of at least 50,000 and a density of
at least 1,000 persons per square mile” (McDowell, 1995, p.33) have a governing
transportation body. These were designated as Metropolitan Planning Organizations or
MPOs. Some MPOs have existed since the 1950’s, especially for large metropolitan areas
(McDowell, 1995, p.33), but they did not become widespread until the early 1960’s.
3
Interestingly, the United States Government had originally intended MPOs to be the
organizations behind transportation as well as other infrastructure elements including
sewers, and housing and development. It was not until more recently, that these planning
bodies concentrated solely on local transportation. As will become increasingly the case,
MPOs will have a major impact on environmental and local political conditions in the
United States. It will be within the political, environmental and governmental realms that
their true purpose is affirmed.
4
Chapter 1: The Inception and Evolution of MPOs
MPOs have had a history of lacking any real authority over transportation planning
and were frequently at odds with other transportation bodies. Although first created in the
1960’s, MPOs lacked substantial authority in transportation issues up through the 1980’s.
It was during these early years that state departments of transportation had a monopoly of
power over local transportation issues (Lewis & McGhee, 2001, p. 211). In turn, the state
departments of transportation were heavily influenced by state highway departments,
which were strong proponents for highway construction. As opposed to MPOs, which
were bodies advocating policies of smart, minimalistic transportation planning, state
highway departments advocated large scale highway and bridge construction projects.
This contrasted sharply with state highway departments and state departments of
transportation which had it in their interest to construct roads and infrastructure due to the
groups that populated their political lobby. This group was known as the highway lobby
and included auto manufacturers, contractors, concrete suppliers, oil companies, truckers,
auto clubs, construction unions, and well-paid civil engineers (Lewis & McGhee, 2002,
p.212). At this time MPOs were essentially marginalized because they did not have the
large, powerful interest groups such as those that backed the state department of
transportation bodies. Due to this contention, and the resulting competition, MPOs existed
largely under the radar from the 1960s to the 1980s. It was during the mid 1980’s that
MPOs began to really lag behind in funding (McDowell, 1995, p.34). During this era it
5
was hard and difficult for MPOs and their constituents to gain any kind of recognition or
significant influence.
Although MPOs have never been mistaken as outright power-players on the
governmental level, it has historically been their role to oversee a “bottom-up” approach to
transportation on the local level. In 1962, the Federal-Aid Highway Act mandated an
urban planning process in all urban areas; this was initially aimed at a collaboration effort
by state and local communities (Edner & McDowell, 2002, p.16). The emphasis for the
local planning was dubbed as the “Three-C’s”, which stood for continuing, comprehensive,
and cooperative features. This was the basis for metropolitan transportation planning that
would continue under the guidance of MPOs (Solof, 1998, p. 15). Since it was the Federal
Government that doled out monies necessary for transportation projects, it was the
responsibility of MPOs to ensure that certain parameters were followed that may be
attached to the fund. The MPO became the guardian or trustee of the money, as the
Federal Government thought it prudent that such bodies were necessary to maintain certain
transportation projects: “Federal and state laws and regulations, moreover, tended to
support the technical/bureaucratic and political influence approaches, as they required
extensive technical documentation and gave out funding in political style by formula or
earmarked projects” (Innes & Garber, 2005, p.180). It was thus the obedience of MPOs to
the political process approved by the Federal Government that they were provided with the
money and in that manner embodied the role that they were set up to accomplish. MPOs
were not just political and technical machines that used Federal money; however by this
process their creation was made both necessary and effective.
6
At the beginning of the 1990’s several initiatives were undertaken to ensure MPOs
would begin to increase in their power and influence over regional transportation policies.
Congress enacted the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA),
which would importantly transform the role of MPOs. By issuing this federal initiative,
the role of MPOs grew into what many deemed as the nascence of a new type of
regionalism (Vogel & Nezelkewicz, 2002, p.108). This new regionalism entailed the
enlarged scope of MPOs in their ability to determine policy, especially transportation
policy in their locality. The ISTEA of 1991 was also groundbreaking insofar as it provided
MPOs with funding from the Federal Government, with the stipulation that the
organization utilized the monies to meet certain criteria. It was now important for MPOs
and their members to become more involved in local planning and it therefore required
more interaction with state departments of transportation, as well as the state and local
governments. In this manner, MPOs enjoyed a sudden rise in their prestige that was the
direct result of a new, stronger tie to the Federal Government. Yet that was not the only
redefining event that MPOs would go through in the 1990s; in 1998 the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) further empowered MPOs by providing them
with an increase in funding. During the early-to-mid 1990s it was becoming clear that the
transformation that MPOs was undergoing was substantial. A new direction was being
laid down for the future of transportation planning in the United States. For decades
MPOs had been present and active, but their involvement in transportation planning had
certain limits. Now, at the beginning of the 21st century, MPOs were empowered to
control some matters that were previously out of their reach: “Thus beginning in 1991,
MPOs were transformed from advisory institutions into institutions that directly influence
7
the distribution of money—from voluntary planning organizations to organizations that
have their fingers on some of the purse strings” (Goetz et al, 2002, p.90).
The expanded role of MPOs by the Federal Government helped to designate it as
an organization that had a choice over how to utilize its funds, and thus it now carried
greater responsibility for its own future prospects. The planning funds were still
administered by the state departments of transportation, but it was ultimately up to the
MPOs themselves to allocate the money in a way that reflected both their objectives and
the broader goals of the Federal Government that was providing the money. Metropolitan
Planning Organizations after 1991 were given some discretion into how to incorporate
financial allocations into their budgets—but they still did not have a say into how much
money they received. It remained the decision of the state departments of transportation to
determine how much money would be provided for MPOs. That however, did not
diminish the newfound power of MPOs—it only revealed that the process by which
transportation planning occurs in the U.S. can be a very complicated manner. At the same
time, the passage of ISTEA in 1991 did not turn MPOs into new autonomous bodies with
the ability to raise revenue as they saw fit (Edner & McDowell, 2002, p.15). As has been
largely cited by many scholars, MPOs were still subject to the higher powers of the state
governments and their state department of transportations (SDOTs). As Figure 1 below
shows, the flow of Federal Money goes through the State DOT before it gets to the MPO.
They did not have the financial pull of governing bodies because they were not the same
thing: “Typically, MPOs are designated by states as planning organizations and not
governing bodies, and as such they are rarely empowered to generate money themselves”
(Sciara & Wachs, 2007, p.385). However, the door was now at least open for MPOs to
8
not only gain much needed recognition from other levels of government, but also for the
possibility to grow their role in overall transportation planning.
Figure 1
Federal
Government
Transportation
Funding
State
DOT
MPO
Many experts note that the change of role for MPOs coincided with a new,
evolving form of government that combined both metropolitan and rural spheres. This
new type of “regionalism” has been one source of speculation behind the increased
presence of MPOs in the local government arena (Vogel & Nezelkewicz, 2002, p.110).
The societal problems of urban sprawl, congestion, and air quality coincided nicely with
the newly defined role of MPOs. Naturally, municipal governments had the best possible
ideas on how to attack and fix the problems of their expanding cities and it became
apparent that one of the logical players would be MPOs. Armed with competent, suitable
board members and technical analysts, MPOs could become the pivotal organizational
body in the new type of regional governance. This new regional governance was
necessary to remedy the increasing problems of suburbanization and the escalating
polycentricism of cities. The nascent regional governance was capable of addressing the
new situation of post-modern cities in the U.S. While it is helpful to think of MPOs as
gaining a new voice in this capacity, it remained a fact that the all-important funding was
still largely at the discretion of the higher levels of government—state and federal. The
exceptions to having control over spending came in two acts: the Surface Transportation
Program-Metro (STP-Metro) funds, and in some states, Congestion Mitigation and Air
9
Quality and Enhancement (CMAQ) (Goetz et al, 2002, p.90). While these two acts were
not merely “token” funds to make MPOs look more autonomous, they were of
substantially less amount and scope than the money available for the National Highway
System—which was under the jurisdiction of the state. Additionally, these two acts could
only be utilized with the “consultation” and approval of the SDOT (Goetz et al, 2002,
p.90).
With the passing of ISTEA in 1991 and TEA-21 in 1998 MPOs gained back power
after the repeal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-95 in 1982. The
OMB Circular A-95 law had been implemented in 1969 and essentially required Federal
Governments to consult with state and local officials before grants were doled out. This
gave MPOs some power insofar as the Federal Government had to consult with them over
current local planning needs (Rothenberg and Gordon, 1983, p.5). But from 1982 to 1991,
MPOs were without this law that helped foster an open dialogue and thus did not have the
influence that they once had. Previous to 1991, Federal Law mandated that urbanized
areas with populations greater than 50,000 have one or more MPOs to establish a regional
long-range transportation plan (Sciara & Wachs, 2007, p. 380). In hindsight ISTEA can be
thought of as a prudent act that was completed with the intention of correcting future
problems of suburbanization. After 1991 and especially after 1998, MPOs were able to
enhance their reputation and presence within the arena of local governance. Their new
position was that they went from being invisible to visible and such a transformation was a
step towards what would be the rise of a new sub-national form of government. It was this
form of government that worked with the state and local levels as well as with SDOT and
area transit agencies. Therefore, MPOs have been at the very least set up in the 1990s as
10
having a substantially viable chance of succeeding in the complex, overlapping realm of
jurisdictions that exist in and around most metropolitan areas in the country today. The
challenge is for MPOs to navigate through this thicket of governance and to become the
platform for where all parties can meet. It is the MPOs that must appeal to the other bodies
for a significant increase in their influence to occur; by doing so they may over time
become an authority that is actually a role-making rather than a body that carries out
designated policies.
MPOs can also serve to help provide a pivotal role as protectors of the
environment for a particular region. It is not the purpose here to analyze the value of the
merits over the discussion of carbon dioxide emissions and if it induces greenhouse gas
effects on the planet. Suffice it to say that most individuals would rather not be exposed to
smog and air pollution on a daily basis. One of the crucial thrusts behind the resurgence of
MPOs in the 1990’s and early 21st century is it was an entity that is often viewed as aligned
with the mass transit lobby and by that association becomes a de facto ally for
environmental groups. Indeed, it was viewed by many that vehicular transportation caused
an increase in air pollution: “Some critics complained of the environmental damage caused
by the nation’s surface-transportation system, particularly in densely populated areas”
(Fisher & Nice, 2002, p. 132). Another component of surface transportation that MPOs
were against—and that is directly related to fuel consumption—is sprawl. While sprawl is
an extremely complex issue with many different viewpoints, it is irrefutable that it harms
the environment not just by encouraging automobile use but also by the destruction of
greenfields and opens spaces (Edner & McDowell, 2002, p. 21). It’s highly feasible that
state departments of transportations and others aligned with the highway lobby would not
11
only tolerate sprawl, they would encourage it because of the jobs its construction would
create. Yet it is a very duty of an MPO, as required by the ISTEA law that it would have:
“minimized transportation-related fuel consumption and air pollution” (Dilger, 2002, p.
52). If any group—governmental or non-governmental—would have the influence to help
stem the tide of air pollution, it would be MPOs.
Additionally, MPOs were involved in the environmental cause by virtue of carrying
out ecologically conscious laws mandated by the Federal Government. It was one of the
requirements of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991
that MPOs and other transportation planning agencies become more vigilant in regards to
reducing air pollution. Although the language was not as politically charged as phrases
such as “help the environment”, there were clauses aimed at cutting down on carbon
dioxide emissions. There was the genesis of a new program for such actions: “…a new
spending category, the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality improvement program
(CMAQ), designed for projects geared at reducing emissions and providing alternatives to
solo driving. In addition, ISTEA’s authorization for mass transit capital funding was about
40 percent higher than the previous level” (Lewis & McGhee, 2001, p. 210). It was
becoming clear that the decline of mass transit ridership in the 1980’s was linked to the
increase in automobile use and therefore a rise in emissions. While department of
transportation in some states had a higher preference for highways and roads, the Federal
Government was keen on promoting the health and environmental benefits of mass transit.
It became part of agenda of MPOs to fulfill this wish by utilizing the grants and money
allotted for an increase in commuter rail and bus transit. Although this was rapidly
becoming one of the causes for MPOs, it would not be without controversy as there were
12
many that were not proponents of environmental tendencies: “Finally, several of the
groups pointed out that national goals, including environmental regulations, often are at
odds with the economic development needs of local communities” (Marbach & Leckrone,
2002, p. 54). It would become an uphill battle in some regions for the prospect of curbing
practices that were economically, but not ecologically sound.
From the late 1990s moving forward, MPOs have been carried, along with other
levels of government into an era where planning become increasingly important. Although
it has been previously noted that MPOs did not substantially alter after the ISTEA of 1991
or the TEA-21 of 1998, there did exist a more subtle shift. While their governing bodies,
physical boundaries and superiors did not change with any great significance, MPOs did
shift their role in overall regional transportation planning. Fiscally, they did receive a
larger piece of the pie, but they had not changed in a fundamental way—at least in regards
to their structures or organization. What was a more palpable change was the fact that they
were increasingly becoming more of the “hub” for local transportation planning. In theory
they were a body of individuals with limited power, but held responsibility for the overall
transportation planning of a designated metropolitan area. In the 1990s, MPOs became the
sphere of influence and change among municipal, county and state governments, as well as
state departments of transportation and local transit agencies. Metropolitan Planning
Organizations at that time may not have fully come into their own, but they were well on
their way and had gained a role defined not by theory but by the reality of their existence.
Indeed there is even evidence that the role of MPOs will only grow in the future:
“Furthermore, the possible expansion of MPO boundaries to encompass the twenty-year
urban growth horizon and the air quality region may increase the territorial reach of
13
decentralized decision making by many MPOs” (Gage & McDowell, 2002, p.140). The
possibility of expansion provided MPOs with more clout in their negotiations and
interactions with other transportation bodies.
14
Chapter 2: Structure, Organization, and Fiscal Responsibilities of MPOs
There are about 341 Metropolitan Planning Organizations in the United States,
although only about 312 have been correctly identified by address (Dilger, 1998, p. 68).
These organizations are by no means even close to uniform in nature, and to try to
categorize them in any way possible—with the exception of saying they are involved in
transportation planning—would be too broad of a stroke. Once one realizes the breadth
and variety of MPOs, it becomes impossible to standardize them. There are small rural
outfits with a few board members and then major, sophisticated bodies that work with
some of the largest transit systems in the world such as the New York Metropolitan
Transportation Council. Some MPOs cover only one county while others, such as the
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission MPO spans across multiple counties and
two states. The Wilmington Area Planning Council (WILMAPCO), although now
presiding over counties in Delaware and Maryland, once additionally hold Salem County
in New Jersey as well. One website that has undertaken a catalogue to some degree is the
Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO). AMPO has a directory of
all of the nation’s MPOs and links to their websites (almost all MPOs have a webpage). In
order to better understand MPOs, what their role is in modern transportation planning, and
all that such endeavors encompass, such as environmentalism, smartgrowth, transit
oriented development, etc., it is better to gauge each planning body in a case by case basis.
15
Despite the potential gains for the future of MPOs, there also exists the possibility
that their role in transportation planning will be stunted by the nature of government in the
United States. The U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations pointed
out that “most MPOs are not governments and do not exercise clear lines of authority”
(Vogel & Nezelkewicz, 2002, p.112). It is clear that MPOs are not ranked among the
traditional levels of government: national, state, and county/municipal/township. Their
boards are largely made up of appointees and local officials as well as transportation
experts from agencies. This hodgepodge may make MPOs a unique, effective and wellbalanced body of interests, but it does not give them the legitimacy that officials on
standard levels of government enjoy. As pointed out by Vogel and Nezelkewicz in their
article “Metropolitan Planning Organizations and the New Regionalism” many MPOs have
central cities that are underrepresented on policy making boards (2002, p.112). Another
impediment to reaching influence for some MPOs is the fact that there can be more than
one for a particular metropolitan area (Vogel & Nezelkewicz, 2002, p.112). There are
many challenges and barriers to moving further into a sphere of influence for many MPOs.
Perhaps the greatest is the aforementioned lack of governmental procedures that would
normally apply for officials on the state and national level. In fact, many state
constitutions don’t establish MPOs as legal entities or provide them with any power
normally granted for governmental entities (Sciara & Wachs, 2007, p. 390). It should not
be apart of the MPOs’ agenda to try to match legitimacy with policy-making bodies but to
try to play a unique role that will ensure they have a future in the local government arena.
The difference in MPO organization and structure is not simply a result of having
different customs in different regions. Consider the state of Connecticut, a geographically
16
small, moderately populated New England state. Although it lacks in physical size, it has
eleven MPOs—each with different organizations and membership requirements. Compare
the Southwestern Regional Planning Agency MPO (SWRPA) with the Capitol Region
Council of Governments MPO (CRCOG). The SWRPA MPO covers only one county,
Fairfield, Connecticut but is considered to include part of the New York City metropolitan
area as well(http://www.swrpa.org/Default.aspx?Home, 5/12/2009). Its council consists of
8 total members, and 9 non-voting, advisory members that include members of the
Connecticut Department of Transportation and the Federal Transit Administration
(http://www.swrpa.org/mpo/index.htm, 3/1/2009). Conversely, the CROCOG MPO,
which covers two Connecticut counties, has 36 voting members on its council, each
representing one of the 29 towns (http://www.crcog.org/transportation/index.html,
3/1/2009). Additionally, Hartford is allowed 4 representatives and the Hartford Transit
District as well as the Environmental Justice Board has a presence on the council. There is
also the chairperson of the council, whom must be a chief elected official from one of the
towns. Also, unlike SWRPA MPO, there are zero advisory members on the board. The
sharp contrast between two MPOs in the same state is a revealing insight into the different
kinds of variations and combinations of MPOs that exist in the country.
Clearly, there are great differences on how many people comprise an MPO council
and what agencies are or are not represented. While it is difficult and nearly impossible to
provide a uniform description of how members are selected to the board or serve in an
advisory capacity, suffice it to say that MPOs draw from their local urban and rural
populations to sit on their councils. One of the difficulties in this process is ensuring that
the population they serve is well represented, through either a voting or non-voting
17
member. One problem that has become an issue for MPO boards is that there tends to be
an underrepresentation of urbanized populations as well as an overrepresentation of white
residents versus minorities (Sanchez, 2006, p. 11). It is apparent that when an MPO with a
metropolitan core has such an underrepresentation of its urban population, then it is logical
that this would result in an underrepresentation of minorities—who tend to populate urban
areas over rural ones. The outcome of this discrepancy is not hard to grasp: the
transportation interests of the rural, white population that is overrepresented will take
priority over that of the urban/minority population that is underrepresented on the boards
and advisory councils. This could mean a decline in programs that benefit urban
populations such as mass transit, and a potential rise in transportation programs that help
rural populations including more funding for highways. Underrepresentation on boards is
also a problem that will not subside soon: “Current demographic trends show that the
proportion of nonwhite residents in metropolitan areas continues to increase, suggesting
that the issue of underrepresentation of minorities by MPO boards will become even more
challenging in the years to come” (Sanchez, 2006, p. 11). It is the responsibility of MPOs
and the local governments they work with to identify this pitfall and work on a remedy for
the problem.
With the more than 300 MPOs in the country, it is not surprising to witness their
diversity and different structures. One distinction that warrants an explanation is that
MPOs are often confused with, and sometimes even categorized under councils of
governments (COGs). These are roughly defined as comprised of voluntary associations
of local governments headed by elected political leaders, which provided forums for
identifying and addressing issues of regional concerns (Wolf, 2004, p. 4). The distinction
18
between these and MPOs can be difficult at times, as the example of Kern Council of
Governments (Kern COG) in California provides. Technically, this is a COG in California
that includes the County of Kern and its eleven incorporated cities
(http://www.kerncog.org/#, 3/01/2009). Although it does not identify itself as an MPO, it
does effectively the same thing—transportation planning. It is even registered in the
directory for MPOs, the Association for Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO).
Most COGs that are registered as MPOs tend to provide transportation planning and other
types of planning and public services as well. Many COG websites have a link to either
the MPO or have a section designated for transportation planning.
As previously mentioned, funding for MPOs is top-down going first from Federal
sources to the State DOTs before becoming apart of the budget. The notion that MPOs
have some discretion of how to use their funds is an advantage, notwithstanding the idea
that they have no part on deciding how much of the money they do receive. To reaffirm a
previous point, it gives MPOs more independence than before the passage of ISTEA and
TEA-21. This appears to be the best possible formula currently available, especially when
given the recent discussions of cutting Federal funding completely, leaving states with the
responsibility of raising the revenue (Marbach & Leckrone, 2002, p. 63). Once the money
has been allocated to the MPO, they secure it in their budget to be utilized for various
projects. Provided the wide variety of MPOs in terms of size and organization, it is not
surprising that their budgets are also different. Yet a quick look at a small and large MPO
in the same region reveals that the budgets are not as strikingly different as the MPOs are
themselves. To provide an example, the Nashua Regional Planning Commission MPO,
which is comprised of only the county of Hillsborough, New Hampshire has a capital
19
budget of about $217 million for the year 2009
(http://www.nashuarpc.org/transportation/documents/planning/STIPConstraintWorksheet.p
df, 03/02/2009). This is clearly a healthy budget for such a small MPO, in fact, it matches
up surprisingly well to Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization, which had a
2009 capital budget of about $290 million
(http://www.ctps.org/bostonmpo/3_programs/2_tip/2008_2011_tip.pdf, 03/02/2009).
Perhaps even more enlightening as to the fiscal responsibility of MPOs, is that they are
required to provide a transportation plan of not just the next few years, but up to thirty
years into the future. Most MPOs have long-range transportation plans that expand all the
way into 2030, including estimated costs.
Despite its increased power and authority among the local agents for transportation
planning, MPOs are still in a process of discovering how to best interact with the different
levels of government and their agencies. Before understanding where MPOs fit into the
realm of local governance, it is important to portray that sphere in an unambiguous and
clear light. Only by discerning the true role of MPOs in their area of function—that of
transportation planning bodies—can one truly appreciate their existence as vital to the
health and well-being of transportation in the United States. But before MPOs can be
dissected for what they are, a firm grasp of how local governments function has to be
overviewed. Only by a broad and comprehensive explanation of the two balancing
entities, MPOs and government, can it be realistic to prove the necessity of the former.
One of the seminal works on MPOs, is an insightful, well-constructed paper by
James F. Wolf, entitled “Understanding Metropolitan Governance: The Experiences of
Metropolitan Planning Organizations”. It was presented at the Annual Meeting of the
20
American Society for Public Administration in Portland, Oregon in March of 2004. This
paper provides a useful backdrop for understanding MPOs by utilizing other similar
concepts as lens with which to view the transportation planning agencies. Among other
ideas that Wolf presents are a brief review of MPOs, an introduction to the notion of a new
type of governance as well as the governmental layers that have an effect on local
transportation planning, including federal, state, and local levels. Wolf also unveils some
original concepts that aren’t always apart of the scholarly literature about MPOs, including
public/private partnerships, civic capital, and more holistic styles of planning. All of these
issues are analyzed effectively into how they may or may not be integrated into the current
activities of MPOs. In the case study of the Wilmington Area Planning Council
(WILMAPCO) MPO that follows many of the concerns that Wolf brings up will be
analyzed further. By utilizing actual data and projects from an existing MPO, with the
intention of revealing current rather than hypothetical problems, it should become more
readily apparent that these transportation agencies are different, dynamic, functional and
above all necessary.
Describing a theoretical situation, in which MPOs are categorized with the same set
of descriptions works for a general summary of history, laws, and common practices.
However, as has been stated thus far, the vast differences and unique attributes of each
MPO makes it difficult to provide a detailed, comprehensive view that will enable an
authentic appreciation for the organizations. Therefore the best method for proving the
true value and the roles of MPOs in the transportation planning process is through case
studies. The MPO selected in this study happens to be both multi-county and multi-state,
and located at the center of the most massive transportation corridor in the U.S., the
21
Northeast Corridor. This MPO also happens to conveniently be the local one, Wilmington
Area Planning Council (WILMAPCO). WILMAPCO MPO includes New Castle County,
Delaware and Cecil County, Maryland. These two counties are contiguous but happen to
lie in two different states. This creates an interesting dynamic that is not as uncommon
among MPOs as one may think. By analyzing the different aspects of WILMAPCO and
all of the operations, functions and contributions that it has for the area it serves, it will
become more apparent how useful and indispensable these transportation organizations are
in the U.S. Some of the attributes that will be examined are citizen involvement, technical
and professional analysis, publications and how the MPO serves as a “bridge” between
government agencies and the local population. The primary focus will be how the
WILMAPCO provides services to those individuals living in the area and those travelers
who utilize its transportation network.
22
Chapter 3: WILMAPCO Organization, Professional Publications and
Technical Analysis
Before providing the different ways that WILMAPCO contributes to local
civic engagement, it is important to explore how the MPO itself is organized. The overall
layout of personnel and organization will be explored in order to help illustrate how
complex and layered MPOs are. The rich variety of agencies and communities that are
represented on MPO boards has already been mentioned; it is this diversity that gives
MPOs and WILMAPCO in particular, a valuable commodity. Specifically, the board
members bring different experiences and areas of expertise that give the organization the
ability to tackle a variety of transportation issues. Beyond its members and its resources are
the final outcome and the valued production of MPOs: various technical analyses,
publications, and long-range plans on transportation issues for the area. These will also be
analyzed subsequently for their full merits and expanded upon to show how invaluable
MPOs are and have become to transportation planning. The case study of WILMAPCO,
an MPO that is both bi-county and bi-state will continue to supply these examples.
The headquarters of WILMAPCO is 850 Library Avenue, Suite 100 Newark, New
Castle County Delaware 19711. All meetings are held at this site unless notification is
provided. For its capital budget, WILMAPCO receives funding from Federal, State, and
Local sources. Both the state of Delaware and Maryland contribute to the MPO—from
revenue generated by sources such as motor fuel tax and tolls. The two states combined
23
will contribute about $189,000,000 or 44% of the annual budget for Fiscal Year 2010. The
next largest source of funding is the Federal Government, which includes the Federal
Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration. These two sub-agencies
within the U.S. Department of Transportation give money for specific programs such as
the Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) and the Surface Transportation Program
Metro (STP).
In 2010 these two will contribute about $166,000,000 or 39% of the funds
for WILMAPCO. Finally, the local municipalities and private donors provide the third
source of revenue. Their total for 2010 is about $75,000 or 17% of the budget. All three
of these sources provide WILMAPCO with the robust sum of $429,000,000 for the fiscal
year 2010. In terms of its planning and administrative budget, WILMAPCO has far less at
its disposal at about $1.8 million dollars for Fiscal Year 2010. For a look at the makeup of
WILMAPCO’s staff, which accomplish day-to-day tasks, please refer to Figure 2 below.
24
WILMAPCO Staff
Figure 2
Name
Position
Tigist Zegeye
Executive Director
Heather Dunigan
Principal Planner
Daniel S. Blevins
Principal Planner
Dave Gula
Senior Transportation Planner
William Swiatek
Senior Transportation Planner
Tamika Graham
Transportation Planner
Randi Novakoff
Transportation Planner
Janet Butler
Executive Assistant
Janet Jasinksi
Administrative Secretary
In terms of organization, WILMAPCO has two committees, the Public Advisory
Committee and the Technical Advisory Committee, as well as the WILMAPCO Council
and six subcommittees. The council, the most visible group in the MPO is made up of nine
members, six from New Castle County and three from Cecil County
(http://www.wilmapco.org/tip/2010%20TIP/APPENDIX%20D%20%20Financial%20Plan.pdf 4/21/2009). It is also the official decision making body of the
MPO. They all serve the council without compensation, except for minor out-of-pocket
expenses. Most positions are ex officio, but appointees may be made instead by the
designated governmental body. In the case of appointees, written confirmation of the
individual is required by whichever body is required to make the selection. The Figure 3
below provides the different backgrounds and agencies of each member.
25
Figure 3
WILMAPCO Planning Council
Member Name
County
Position
Method of Selection
Vacant
New
Castle
Delaware Governor
Appointee
The government of Delaware is required
to provide written confirmation of the
appointee annually
Carolann Wicks
New
Castle
Delaware Department of
Transportation
Secretary of Delaware Department of
Transportation or appointee
Stephen
Kingsbury
New
Castle
Executive Director,
Delaware Transit
Corporation
Director of Delaware Transit
Corporation
James M. Baker
New
Castle
Mayor, City of
Wilmington
Mayor of Wilmington or appointee
Chris Coons
New
Castle
County Executive
County Executive or appointee, chosen
by the chief executives of the several
municipalities in each county
Vance A. Funk
New
Castle
New Castle County
Municipalities’
Representative, Mayor
of Newark
Municipalities’ representative
Michael M.
Nixon
Cecil
County
Jim Mullin
Cecil
County
Joseph L. Fisona
Cecil
County
Maryland Governor
Appointee, Maryland
Department of
Transportation
Cecil County
Commissioner
Cecil County
Municipalities’
Representative, Mayor
of Elkton
Maryland Governor appointee
Cecil County Commissioner or
appointee
Municipality representative for Cecil
County. The chief executives for
participating municipalities or their
empowered representative are eligible to
participate in the election of the Cecil
County municipal representative.
26
As one may gather from this list, the members of the Council are a select group of
individuals—many who have visible and high positions within local government. Some
hold elected office, such as the mayors of Wilmington, Newark and Elkton, and others
have attained their rank by virtue of their being governor’s appointees. One representative
is from the Delaware Department of Transportation, a state transportation department. All
nine members are in major positions within state or local government. This occurrence
underscores the responsibility that WILMAPCO places on its executive council.
Furthermore, the fact that such important figures are placed on the board is indicative of
the value of transportation planning to New Castle and Cecil Counties. Positions as the
mayor of Wilmington and Newark are ones that require a lot of time and energy—and yet,
it is still required that they serve on the council of WILMAPCO—further underscoring the
importance of MPOs (http://www.wilmapco.org/tac/index.htm, 3/30/09).
Of particular importance to the WILMAPCO Council, is the Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC, please see Figure 4 listed below), which is made up of 22 members. As
the name implies, the experts on this committee are in charge of producing the technical
reports and studies for the MPO. All of their work and recommendations must go before
the council for approval, however. Like the council, the TAC is comprised of a select
group of individuals—all transportation experts—from a variety of backgrounds.
Represented on this committee are professionals from the Delaware and Maryland state
transportation departments, local planning agencies, and Federal Transportation Agencies.
More specifically, it includes agencies such as the Delaware Department of Transportation
and Maryland Department of the Environment on the state level, and the Wilmington
Department of Planning and Town of Elkton on the local level. The Federal Agencies
27
referred to are such departments as the Federal Highway Department and the
Environmental Protection Agency. Finally, included in the committee is a chair, held by a
representative from the Delaware Transit Corporation, and a Vice-Chair, held by the
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Judging by the
presence of a group that is so large and representative of the various transportation
interests, WILMAPCO has an interest in maintaining a truly comprehensive and
representative technical committee (http://www.wilmapco.org/tac/index.htm, 3/30/09).
28
Figure 4
WILMAPCO Technical Advisory Committee
Member Name
Agency
Function
Representative
Delaware Transit Corporation
Representative
Representative
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control
Delaware Department of Transportation
Chair
ViceChair
member
Representative
New Castle County Department of Land Use
member
Representative
Representative
Representative
Wilmington Department of Planning
Wilmington of Public Works
member
member
member
Representative
Newark Planning Department
State Planning Coordination Office
Representative
Delaware Economic Development Office
member
Representative
Maryland Department of Transportation
member
Representative
Maryland State Highway Administration
member
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Maryland Transit Administration
Maryland Department of the Environment
Maryland Department of Planning
Cecil County Office of Planning, Zoning and Parks and
Recreation
Town of Elkton
Representative
member
member
member
member
member
member
member
Transportation Management Association of Delaware
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Representative
Amtrak
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Federal Transit Administration
Diamond State Port Corporation
member
member
member
member
member
WIMAPCO’s Public Advisory Committee (PAC), as the name implies, is a
committee is made up of 24 members who represent various civic, environmental, business
29
and other influential groups from the region. Besides carrying out the important function
of representing various constituents that can’t be directly involved in the transportation
planning process, the PAC also helps in developing methods and techniques for how the
public can get involved. Meetings are held generally every other month and are open to the
public. The members represented on this public board come from a diverse array of
backgrounds, including representatives from the various cities and towns in the area, the
Elderly and Disabled Transit Advisory Committee, the Latin American Community
Center, as well as other groups (for a complete listing of the representatives, please see
Figure 5 below). The fact that the composition of the committee is made up of such
different economic, environmental, health and transportation organizations ensures that a
broad array of public interests are represented at the meetings. These representatives act
on behalf of a variety of specific groups and citizens and organizations in the area.
Moreover, these meetings are already open to the public and therefore a place where
theoretically anyone off the street could attend. The meetings have essentially become a
place where the public can be represented both on the official board and as potential
witnesses to the process. More on the important topic of civic engagement and what it
symbolizes will be discussed in the next chapter.
30
Figure 5
Member Name
Glen Pusey
Wesley Avera
Dan Bockover
George Losse
William Franey
Fritz Griesinger
David B. Carter
Richard A.
Janney
Bill Miners
Joseph Mitchell
Patricia D. Folk
David Bird
Anita Puglisi
Bruce Brunozzi
Roy Podorson
Dennis Christie
Lucretia Young
Harlan C.
Williams
Laura Mayse
Thomas Carroll
Brad Killian
Christ Castagno
Tom Posatko
Darlene Cole
Rafael Castro
Peggy Shultz
Veronica Oliver
Agelina Micheva
Barbara Washam
Vacant
Public Advisory Committee
Agency
Bear Glasgow Council
Centreville Civic Association
Civic League for New Castle County
Claymont Community Coalition
Milltown-Limestone Civic Alliance
Pike Creek Valley Civic League
Southern New Castle County Alliance
Southern New Castle County
Function
member
member
member
member
member
member
member
member
Cecil County
Cecil County
Cecil County
City of New Castle
City of Newark
City of Wilmington
City of Wilmington
AARP Delaware
AARP Delaware
Cecil County Board of Realtors
member
member
member
member
member
member
member
member
member
member
Cecil County Chamber of Commerce
The Committee of 100
Delaware Greenways
Delaware State Chamber of Commerce
Delmarva Rail Passenger Association
Elderly and Disabled Transit Advisory
Committee
Latin Community Center
League of Women Voters of New Castle
County
Neighborhood House
New Castle County Chamber of Commerce
Urban Environmental Center
White Clay Creek Bicycle Club
member
member
member
member
Chair
member
member
member
member
member
Chair Elect
member
31
In terms of committees, WILMAPCO is impressive in regards to having a variety
of integral and important subcommittees on their panel. A total of six subcommittees are
present, all of which represent a distinct interest for the MPO. These committees serve in
advisory roles, making important recommendations on transportation plans. Included in
this group are the Air Quality Subcommittee (AQS), Freight and Goods Movement
Working Group (FWG), Congestion and Management Subcommittee (CMS), the Data and
Demographics Subcommittee (DDS), the Planning and Edge Advisory Committee
(PEAC), and the Non-Motorized Transportation Working Group
(http://www.wilmapco.org/tac/index.htm, 3/30/09). Since it is part of an MPO’s function
to explore other modes of transportation it is not surprising that some of these committees,
such as the CMS, and the last two listed are present in WILMAPCO. There has been a
recent movement of MPOs to become more actively involved in a holistic approach to
transportation planning, which includes a regard for air quality, integrative land use, and a
goal of depleting congestion. It is these challenges that require MPOs to enlist the aid of
various groups to help explore alternative methods of transportation and land-use planning.
It is even within the specificities listed in ISTEA and TEA-21 that call for at least the
evaluation of options to include multi-modal and inter-modal transportation planning
within a region (Wolf, 2004, p. 12). Moreover, James F. Wolf includes in his article the
idea that there are particular duties to perform: “MPOs are required to consider other viable
alternatives to highway transportation as well as connectivity among all transportation
modalities” (p. 12). By analyzing the different subcommittees present on the WILMAPCO
board, it is reasonable to assess that the MPO is not exempt from this rule.
32
A brief examination of these subcommittees to illustrate the dedication of
WILMAPCO to the new holistic planning approach is necessary to mention here. The
WILMAPCO Air Quality Subcommittee (AQS, please see Figure 6 below) is comprised of
14 members from the federal, state and local levels. This includes groups such as the
Federal Highway Administration, the Maryland Department of the Environment, and the
Delaware Transit Corporation. Their goal is to make recommendations on the effect that
the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP) has on the quality of air. According to protocol, the Federal Transit Administration
cannot fund transportation projects that do not conform to the standards upheld by the
Clean Air Act. Suffice it to say that the AQS is both a complex and highly focused
organization. The webpage for this subcommittee includes a lot of useful links to
information on a variety of related issues, including climate change, ozone activity, and
alternative fuel sources. There are also PDFs and links on informative air quality studies
(http://www.wilmapco.org/tac/index.htm, 3/30/09). The amount and scholarly nature of
the data on this topic underscores its importance to WILMAPCO. Clearly, it is an MPO
intent on maintaining clean air in its region and in so doing has deployed a wide variety of
resources to accomplish the task.
33
Figure 6
Air Quality Subcommittee Members
Member
Name
Agency
representative
Delaware Transit Corporation
representative
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control
representative
Delaware Department of Transportation
representative
Clean Air Administrator
representative
New Castle County Department of Land Use
representative
Transportation Management Association/Delaware
representative
Maryland Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary
representative
Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway
Administration
representative
Maryland Department of the Environment
representative
representative
Cecil County Planning Office
representative
representative
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Federal Transit Administration
Two subcommittees that share an overlap in terms of information and statistics are
the Freight and Goods Movement Working Group (FWG) and the Congestion
Management Systems Subcommittee (CMS). FWG is smaller than the AQS, but it is also
in its infancy, as it wasn’t approved of until 2007. There are presently six members on the
board—all of which represent federal, state and local levels of government (for the
agencies they represent, please see Figure 7 below). This group oversees the movement of
freight and merchandise through the WILMAPCO region and conducts subsequent studies
and recommendations. A lot of their information is tied into topics such as freight rail, the
Port of Wilmington and truck volume. The FWG also looks into potential bottleneck
34
areas within its jurisdiction. Similarly to AQS, there is a multitude of links and
downloadable PDF-formatted documents and maps that provide detailed information on
freight transportation within New Castle and Cecil Counties. There is no information on
the makeup of the CMS council, but what is offered is the type of studies it conducts. By
utilizing a “systems” approach, CMS researches the congestion affecting the area. It
produces a variety of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps on the location and
degrees of traffic in both counties. Additionally, a table regarding tolls, pedestrian and
bicycle paths, and traffic routes can be observed and analyzed. Both the FWG and CMS
offer an array of downloadable maps and tables of studies conducted in the area as well as
links to national data and trends (http://www.wilmapco.org/tac/index.htm, 3/30/09).
Please see the table below for representation of the FWG (note there was no available data
on the representation of CMS).
Figure 7
Member
Name
representative
Freight and Goods Movement Working Group
representative
New Castle County Department of Land Use
representative
Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway
Administration
representative
Maryland Department of the Environment
representative
Cecil County Planning Office
representative
Agency
Delaware Department of Transportation
U.S. Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
Another important subcommittee for WILMAPCO is the Demographics and Data
Subcommittee (D&DS), formed in 1999. The D&DS meets regularly and focuses on
producing data for population numbers, demographics, employment change projections
and GIS maps. In this manner, WILMAPCO serves as a sort of census for the two
35
counties: numerous reports on population changes, household sizes, and employment
projections have been produced and uploaded onto the website. This information is also
related to congestion and traffic flow, but additionally it serves as a forecast for the future
economic and population trends for the region. While the latter may not be directly about
transportation, it represents an important branch of the subject. The data on population
distribution and household size can lead to important forecasts for future transportation
corridors and potential bottleneck areas. By harnessing these statistics and delivering
quick, accessible GIS maps and tables, WILMAPCO is actively playing the role of a
planning organization delivering technical services
(http://www.wilmapco.org/tac/index.htm, 3/30/09). The GIS maps are multi-layered and
colorful, providing easy visuals not just for the experts, but also for regular citizens that
may not share the same technical training. Furthermore, this electronic production
enhances the MPO’s role as a credible source of information: “The skill of MPO staff
using GIS allows them to offer a technology that makes questions about the connection of
transportation planning to other policy areas easier to identify among non-technical
professional staff, political leaders and the community” (Wolf, 2004, p. 21). The D&DS,
along with the Technical Advisory Committee and the other subcommittees offers these
exact services.
Two final subcommittees to be mentioned are the Planning at the Edge Advisory
Committee (PEAC) and the Non-motorized Transportation Working Group. The Planning
at the Edge Advisory Committee (PEAC), developed in the year 2000, is a subcommittee
that investigates many of the aforementioned issues, including congestion and freight.
What separates this subcommittee from the others is the fact that it encompasses the
36
broader Mid-Atlantic region, including Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania and New Jersey
in the group. The studies conducted are widely comprehensive; included is a two-part
analysis that looks at twenty-eight counties in the region, with a focus on demographic and
travel characteristics. Also, there is an evaluation of population, employment, travel speed,
work commute time, volume to capacity, freight volumes, transit services, and
transportation equity. Both studies—the first conducted in 2004 and second done in
2008—are available in PDF format for use by anyone. Additionally, there are links to
other related research projects on transportation in the area such as the Maryland
Transportation Authority I-95 Master Plan.
The Non-motorized Transportation Working Group is a subcommittee that
specializes in bicycle and pedestrian paths in the two counties. In this group are bicycle
and pedestrian groups and advocates as well as state and local representatives
(http://www.wilmapco.org/tac/index.htm, 3/30/09). Although this subcommittee is the
smallest of the six and meets only every other month, it none-the-less encompasses an
important and growing segment in transportation planning. It is also consistent with the
multi-modal focus of MPOs and the overall goal of comprehensive transportation
planning: “…over ninety percent of the MPOs include bicycle and pedestrian plans while
more than eighty percent listed specific pedestrian and bicycle projects (Lewis 1999; Wolf
and Farquhar 2003)” (Wolf, 2004, p. 13).
The invaluable work that the different committees and subcommittees
contribute has already been mentioned, with their labor accumulating into a vast amount of
reports, technical maps, and analysis. One of the cornerstones of MPOs, and the main
component of their credibility and influence, are their technical skills and the ability to
37
provide reliable results (Wolf, 2004, p.20). It is this ability that perhaps more than
anything else adds value and legitimizes their organizations. WILMAPCO is no exception
to this and has created a wealth of information, statistics and data concerning transportation
planning in New Castle and Cecil Counties. To provide an example, under the tab of the
WILMAPCO website labeled “Data and Maps” is a “Clearinghouse” that gives links to
several subcategories including demographic projections, census data, a map room, data
and reports, and links to relevant websites. Each of these is rich in data in their own right;
the map room links to a page with both downloadable PDF maps and interactive Google
maps that allow navigators to pan and zoom in on different locations. The maps illustrate
information ranging from traffic corridors, cars per household, travel time to work, median
household income, population demographics and much more. The maps entail a large
amount of information and yet the “map room” is just one component of the link to the
“Data Clearinghouse” (http://www.wilmapco.org/tac/index.htm, 3/30/09).
Also available from the website are comprehensive plans, both long and short range
for the region. Included is the federally mandated Regional Transportation Plan which has
at least a 20 year planning horizon and the Transportation Improvement Program—a
shorter forecast of the next four years. The latest version of the Regional Transportation
plan was completed in 2007 and includes transportation planning for New Castle County
and Cecil County until the year 2030. The Transportation Improvement Program covers
transportation planning until 2013, and was approved of in March of 2009. Besides these
two required plans there are many others with links to vital information and reports.
Among these are community plans for the different population centers in the two counties
such as Chesapeake City and Middletown. There are reports on air quality and freight
38
movement and links to general topics in the WILMAPCO webpage like School Children’s
Transportation Program, Emergency Preparedness, and the important Air Quality page. It
is detrimental to have a variety of plans and community models as it gives the MPO
substantial 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”
(Goetz, et al. 2002, p. 100). By utilizing their professional staff and ability, WILMAPCO
has become a reliable source of information and advice for the state DOTs in Maryland
and Delaware. It also provides comprehensive plans and extensive research for the entire
area.
During the past few years, major publications have been provided by WILMAPCO,
all of which are accessible from the website. In the “Plans and Reports” section there are
links to WILMAPCO Plans, Community Plans, and major reports. In 2008, the
WILMAPCO council approved of the Congestion Management Systems Summary. This
includes a very detailed matrix of the different population centers in the region complete
with data on their demographics, transportation inventory and trends that were observed.
In March of this year, the Environmental Justice Report was endorsed and made available
for download on the website. It is a 148 page report that was partially financed by the
Federal Government and is a response to laws concerning the equitable treatment of
minorities in regards to transportation planning. It looks specifically at the low-literacy
and non-English speaking groups in the Wilmington area and focuses on how to break
policy barriers and prevent potential discrimination from laws. The Unified Planning
Working Program (UPWP) is an annual plan that describes the upcoming planning
39
activities and transportation-related air quality planning activities. The federally funded,
60 page report is intended for the year 2010. Additionally, there are other major reports
that have been created and uploaded onto the website within the past few years. The detail
and professionalism of the studies provides evidence of the time and energy utilized by
employees to investigate these different topics.
In his paper, James F. Wolf brings up two new concepts with regards to traditional
hierarchy of government: the change from government to governance and the inception of
“new regionalism”. Both of these concepts entail a movement towards greater cooperation
between governmental and non-governmental organizations. Additionally, it represents a
discontinuation of command-style government: “Governance mechanisms become a
central focus and can include grants and contracts as well as agreements that do not rest
solely on the authority and sanctions of government” (Wolf, 2004, p. 7). The new
regionalism model encompasses a much broader variety of organizational arrangements to
meet the challengers created by highly fragmented political structures (Wolf, 2004, p.8).
Both of these concepts fit well with the actions of MPOs as an entity that is to be
cooperated with and consulted for advice and expertise on a number of different
transportation issues. The huge catalogue of professional publications, maps, community
plans, and data that WILMAPCO houses provides evidence of its importance in the new
regional model. As governments have been moving from rowing to steering, MPOs have
taken up the oars and provided the muscle from which communities and organizations can
use to have safe, dependable, and clean transit options and corridors (Wolf, 2004, p. 7).
40
Chapter 4: WILMAPCO and Citizen Involvement
One of the functions of an MPO, besides transportation planning, is to promote and
institute a dialogue between local and state governments as well as non-governmental
associations. While the former are considered to be apart of government and retain all of
the prestige and privileges that such offices hold, there is still the consideration of those
constituents they serve. It is difficult to imagine that all of the citizens’ needs and desires
are met by their transportation agencies. What MPOs help to accomplish is the possibility
of bringing both sides of the table into a discussion about transportation planning. It
remains important that all voices are heard; especially when it is the roads, highways, and
bridges that will affect communities. While it is unusual to have a random group of
concerned citizen voices on an MPO advisory board or panel, they are often present
through the different non-profit organizations, civic associations, and transit agencies. In
this manner the opinions of the well-informed and not just the casual observer are taken
into account. Indeed, it was one of the stipulations that citizen involvement be improved
from previous levels:
The emphasis on public participation reinforced elements of ISTEA that called for
improved public involvement in the transportation planning process. These
changes implicitly reflect an acknowledgement that the transportation planning
process had been focused too narrowly on the traditional concerns of transportation
agencies, not necessarily on the goals and values of the public they serve (Poorman,
2001) (Handy, 2007, p. 115).
41
What makes MPOs unique and different from the various forms of government is their
ability to straddle the fence metaphorically, and have both a professional staff with
technical expertise, as well as locally elected officials and other representatives to provide
their judgment in transportation matters.
In his paper on MPOs, James F. Wolf brings up the notion of “Civic Capital” as an
essential part to effective regional governance (Wolf, 2004, p. 10). The author describes
civic capital as the direct result when people depend less on markets and government and
more on the civil sector for planning operations. One method for obtaining this civic
capital is the formation of networks that are focused on creating global economic
competitiveness, arts and culture and those committed to advancing public policy
dialogues. Civic capital is important for MPOs because having it ensures the cooperation
of local officials and a more “bottom-up” approach to transportation planning rather than
the “top-down” method of obeying Federal and State governments. Wolf cites different
authors who have written on the topic and have made the claim that capable leadership
among elected members of the governing board was a sign of successful MPOs (Wolf,
2004, p. 10-11). Here it is the author’s hypothesis that strong regional governance is a sign
of a competent MPO and that the more civic capital accumulated, i.e. the more local
players such as transit operators, citizens, and locally elected leaders are involved in the
process—the better. Of this group the one that perhaps brings the most legitimacy to the
operation in terms of true civic engagement are the citizens themselves. In terms of having
an MPO that is truly representative of its region, it is imperative that local citizens are able
to become involved, even if it is only in an advisory capacity. Civic participation then
becomes a key building block in the pursuit of MPOs to gain the important civic capital.
42
In regards to civic engagement and bringing the public into the transportation
planning conversation, WILMAPCO MPO does an excellent job. One of the hallmarks of
its ability to engage the citizens is its transparency. The official website is user-friendly
and has a highly visible setup and is also available in Spanish (http://www.wilmapco.org/).
One of the links from the drop-down menu is to the “WILMAPCO’s Public Guide to
Transportation Planning” which offers a comprehensive, downloadable PDF offering an
excellent Transportation Planning Guide for the MPO. While these things may sound
fundamental, they are essential to communicating to the public how transportation
planning works and where individuals can get involved. Included in this useful electronic
pamphlet are guides to transportation planning, some regional issues facing WILMAPCO,
and how the public can get involved. In this way, WILMAPCO is able to reach out to
citizens and provide them with knowledge and information about planning. Additionally,
WILMAPCO’s website has Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), a calendar of events and
a roster of all of the councils, committees, and subcommittees. The website does an
excellent job of reassuring visitors that the MPO is there to serve others, it even says in the
banner headline: “Partners With You in Transportation Planning”
(http://www.wilmapco.org/, 03/14/2009). Its ability to reveal to the public all of its
activities, publications, maps and upcoming events makes it a genuinely transparent
organization.
There are multiple ways in which the public can, without having any previous
experience in transportation, and without even having to leave their home be able to submit
problems, questions, and ideas to WILMAPCO. This is a valuable tool, because it makes
public engagement available to those who may be homebound, disabled, or lack access to
43
transportation. Instead of having to travel to the meeting place, people can send their
concerns through the Internet. Fifteen years ago, this would have not been possible, but
modern technology has provided widespread access on a level that was previously
impossible. While some of the forms on the site are dedicated to transportation agencies,
such as the Transportation Improvement Program Amendment form and the Unified
Planning Work Program form, there are others available for citizens. These are more
general in nature and are meant for the public to utilize as their way of expressing their
input about a transportation issue, such as the Transportation Problem/Project Submission
Form. Besides being able to submit forms with a regional transportation question or
comment, there is also a standard email submission that links the WILMAPCO email
address directly to the individual’s email provider. Finally, there is a link to reports and
newsletters that help the public gain access to some of the publications of WILMAPCO.
Transparency is important not only for earning the public’s trust but also gaining
credibility as an agency that is truly working with and among the citizens.
Besides utilizing WILMAPCO’s website to submit concerns, receive newsletters
and obtain information about regional transportation planning, there are other ways citizens
can participate. In WILMAPCO’s Transportation Planning Guide recommendations are
laid out for how citizens can get involved in the planning process. For example, meetings
are open to the public, which enables people to witness and understand transportation
planning first-hand. It is also possible to volunteer to serve on a citizen focus group or a
citizen advisory committee. Other options offered are to extend invitations for
transportation officials to attend civic club meetings, schools, rotary clubs, Kiwanis
meetings, and other organizations that may want to be educated on the different issues
44
WILMAPCO is confronting. Live interaction with MPO officials and advisory groups is a
useful way for unaffiliated people to ensure that transportation experts are doing what they
are supposed to do. In many ways, attending meetings or sitting in on advisory groups is
better than merely submitting an online comment, because it provides a physical presence
and allows the process to unfold with legitimacy and to become a part of true public
discourse. Additionally, citizens in Cecil and New Castle Counties can take Public
Participation Surveys. In 2007, the results of a web-based public participation survey
provided by WILMAPCO were posted on its website. By utilizing the survey posted on
the web, people were able to both become involved in the process and at the same time
could appreciate that their MPO wanted them to get involved.
MPOs are known as decision-making bodies composed of a variety of
agencies, elected officials and citizen groups. As part of the process of getting the public
involved, MPOs are required to not only demonstrate the diversity of their boards but also
give the citizens the opportunity to participate. Indeed, this function has been advanced by
some as important for MPOs and essential to their nature: “It should be noted that elected
representation and public participation compose a two-pronged conception of
representative bureaucracy, providing public access to elected officials and to
administrative processes” (Sanchez, 2006, p. 14). WILMAPCO embodies this necessity
through its own administrative processes and the variety of ways in which it invites public
participation. Almost everything it has to offer is posted conveniently on its website,
including access to maps, data, surveys and other technical reports. As with other MPOs,
WILMAPCO has created efforts to make all of its activities transparent and as publicly
involved as possible. Through the different types of participation including surveys, the
45
ability to send in questions, and keeping its meetings open to the public, it has created the
potential for the accumulation of Wolf’s civic capital. An MPO can only do so much in
making its organization open to public participation; eventually it becomes the
responsibility of the public to be involved in the process. The onus is on the citizens to
choose to become informed on the different types of transportation planning in their
community.
46
Discussion
The amount of literature dedicated to MPOs and their function is quite
significant in their scope and number. About seven years ago there was a veritable spike in
articles relating to this topic. While the average layman may know very little about these
organizations, the transportation expert or engineer is sure to not only know of their
existence, but have a firm opinion as to their usefulness. It can be debated whether MPOs
are a legitimate and necessary organization or if they are perhaps another level of
bureaucracy disguised as a non-governmental organization. There are experts on perhaps
both sides of the issue, and the discussion over their use and future will and should
continue. What can be inferred from knowing just the facts of what MPOs do, how they
are organized and the amount of money issued to them is that they have become
indispensible. Currently, their expertise and judgment are relied upon time and again for
transportation, and increasingly, regional planning. The “bottom-up” approach that they
represent is more than a populist ploy to take back government. It is a logical outcome of
answering the hypothetical question of who is best suited to plan transportation on a local
level. The answer has remained what it was when first examined in the Federal-Aid
Highway Act of 1962, which established MPOs for urban areas of a certain size (Wolf,
2004, p.5). Essentially, they are best equipped to handle land and transit issues because
they utilize local officials, experts, and universities—understandably those that have the
firmest grasp on what their particular area’s strengths and weaknesses are. Incidentally,
MPOs were so good at this function, that their powers were expanded with the passage of
47
ISTEA in 1991 and TEA-21 in 1998. These acts gave MPOs the added responsibility of
monitoring air quality, as well as providing long-range, comprehensive plans.
For those that may not see MPOs as particularly useful or necessary, the trends
suggest that they will only grow in influence and power. It is not necessarily the case that
MPOs are organizations that actively seek to control other player’s actions, but only that
they pursue more autonomy. While their funding originates from the federal government,
it is the responsibility of the state government to ensure that the appropriate amount is
provided to the MPO. In order to be effective planning bodies, they need to have at least
the guarantee of a certain amount of funding for their projects. As Wolf mentions, the
paradigm for government has shifted from rowing to steering, with the rowing falling into
the hands of organizations like MPOs. In order for MPOs to present their case for
existence successfully, it is imperative that their skilled work and technical knowledge be
advertised to and understood by governmental bodies and transportation lobbies. Another
question that must be addressed moving forward is the representation of their boards. It
has been previously mentioned that the urban/minority population has shown trends of
underrepresentation on MPO governing councils (Sanchez, 2006, p. 11). Even with Public
Advisory Committees like WILMAPCO that represent a wide variety of demographics on
a committee, it is not the same as having minorities present on the governing council.
Here the burden lies on the MPOs to self-examine the election and/or selection processes
for the governing council in their region.
Finally, it is far more legitimate to argue over perhaps not the outright usefulness of
their existence, but perhaps the type of broad agenda they represent. The work and
contributions that MPOs such as WILMAPCO produce is evident by just a five-minute
48
peruse of its website. The information gathered and synthesized is vast and highly
empirical—making it useful for planners, city managers and engineers to apply. But the
case can be made successfully, that MPOs represent a new and different type of
transportation planning that shifts the focus away from the more traditional automobilecentered world. This breakaway is undoubtedly viewed with negativity by some as
perhaps a subtle program to bring about alternative forms of transit. It is quite accurate, of
course, as MPOs are federally required to plan multi-modal and inter-modal approaches to
transportation in their communities. Furthermore it is also related to the mitigation of poor
air quality in regions, which, as has been mentioned, is another one of their duties. In this
regard, the case can be made against MPOs on sheer ideological grounds. What cannot be
challenged is the notion that these bodies produce highly efficient plans, and are useful at
bringing together many different parties on the local level. The results are the binding of
many elements together to produce comprehensive transportation plans with a large scope,
and a philosophy of environmentalism and inclusiveness.
49
Bibliography
http://www.crcog.org/transportation/index.html, retrieved on 3/1/2009.
http://www.ctps.org/bostonmpo/3_programs/2_tip/2008_2011_tip.pdf, retrieved on
3/2/2009.
Dilger, Robert Jay. (1998). “TEA-21: Transportation Policy, Pork Barrel Politics, and
American Federalism” Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 28(1) 49-69.
Dilger, Robert Jay (2002). “State and Local Government Officials’ Perspectives on
Intergovernmental Relationships in Surface Transportation Policy: 1987 and 2001”
Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 32(1) 65-85.
Edner, Sheldon and Bruce D. McDowell. (2002). “Surface-Transportation Funding in a
New Century: Assesing One Slice of the Federal Marble Cake” Publius: The
Journal of Federalism. 32(1) 7-24.
Fisher, Patrick and David Nice. (2002). “Variations in the Use of Grant Discretion: The
Case of ISTEA” Publius: The Journal of Federalism. 32(1) 131-142.
50
Gage, Robert W. and Bruce D. McDowell. (2002). “ISTEA and the Role of MPOs in
the New Transportation Environment: A Midterm Assessment” Publius: The
Journal Of American Federalism. 25(3) 133-154.
Goetz, A.R., Dempsey, P.S., & Larson C. (2002). “Metropolitan Planning Organizations:
Findings and Recommendations for Improving Transportation Planning” Publius:
The Journal of Federalism. 32(1) 87-105.
Handy, Susan. (2007). “Regional Transportation Planning in the US: An Examination of
Changes in Technical Aspects of the Planning Process in Response to Changing
Goals” Transportation Policy. 15, 113-126.
http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/, retrieved on 04/02/2009.
Innes, Judith E. and Judith Garber. (2005). “Planning Styles in Conflict” Journal of the
American Planning Association. 71(2) 177-188.
http://www.kerncog.org/#, retrieved on 03/01/2009.
Lewis, Paul G. and Eric McGhee. (2001). “The Local Roots of Federal Policy Change:
Transportation in the 1990s” Polity. 34(2), 205-229.
Marbach, Joseph R. and J. Wesley Leckrone. (2002). “Intergovernmental Lobbying for the
51
Passage of TEA-21” Publius: The Journal of Federalism. 32(1), 45-64.
McDowell, Bruce. (1995). “MPO Capacity: Improving the Capacity of Metropolitan
Planning Organizations to Help Implement National Transportation Policies”
U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. 33-34.
http://www.nashuarpc.org/transportation/documents/planning/STIPConstraintWorksheet.p
df, retrieved on 03/02/2009).
Nezelkewicz, Norman and Ronald K. Vogel. (2002). “Metropolitan Planning
Organizations and the New Regionalism: The Case of Louisville.” The Journal
of Federalism. 32(1), 107-129.
Rothenberg, Irene Fraser and George J. Gordon. (1983). “ “Out with the Old, in with the
New”: The New Federalism, Intergovernmental Coordination and Executive Order
12372.” The State of American Federalism. 14(3), 31-47.
Sanchez, Thomas W. (2006). “An Inherent Bias? Geographic and Racial-Ethnic Patterns of
Metropolitan Planning Organization Boards” The Brookings Institution. 1-19.
Sciara, Gian-Claudia and Martin Wachs. (2007). “Metropolitan Transportation Funding:
Prospects, Progress, and Practical Considerations” Public Works Management
Policy. 12(378), 378-394.
52
Solof, Mark. (1998, January). “History of Metropolitan Planning Organization” North
Jersey Transportation Planning Authority, Inc.
http://www.njtpa.org/Pub/Report/hist_mpo/default.aspx., retrieved on 4/3/2009.
http://www.swrpa.org/mpo/index.htm, retrieved on 3/1/2009.
http://www.wilmapco.org/, retrieved 03/14/2009.
Wolf, James F. (2004). “Understanding Metropolitan Governance: The Experiences of
Metropolitan Planning Organizations” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Society for Public Administration. 1-34.
53