AMPO Survey Results: Institutional Survey



AMPO Survey Results: Institutional Survey

AMPO conducted this survey during the spring of 2004. It was distributed to all MPOs and received 80 responses. The survey is intended to provide general information that will assist new MPOs in their formation and development. The questions are based on our new colleagues’ most frequently asked questions, as well as other issues fundamental to operating an MPO. Below are the full results to the survey; contact Michael Montag (mmontag@) with any questions or requests for more detailed analysis. These results can be viewed, along with the results of all AMPO Surveys, at: .

1. Are your full time staff employed by:

[pic]

Other:

• Association of Governments

• Both City & County

• City/County Planning Commission (jointly funded, free standing)

• COG Employed by MPO Policy Committee but included in Fiscal Agents (city) pay schedule/benefits package

• Exec. Dir by county; others by city federal compact planning agency

• Metro Planning Commission

• Regional Council, City and County

• Transit Authority is legal "host"

• Unified government

Breakdown by MPO size (percentages):

[pic]

2. Where is your MPO housed?

[pic]

Other:

• Association of Governments

• City/county planning commission

• COG

• Federal compact planning agency

• Independent but located in the city county building

• Independent but with support services from our largest city (serving as our paid host)

• Metro Planning Commission

• Planning Dept.

• Rent space in two City Halls

• State Dept. of Administration

Breakdown by MPO size (percentages):

[pic]

3. Is your MPO insured by:

[pic]

Other:

• Association of Governments

• California Joint Powers Insurance Authority

• City/county planning commission

• Federal compact planning agency

• Health insurance provided through city, paid for by MPO, No liability insurance

• Highway/airport authority

• Jacksonville Transportation Authority

• Member of a municipal pool

• Private

• Purchased a business insurance policy from local agency

• Regional Insurance Trust

• Regional Risk Management Pool

• State

• The MPO contributes to an insurance polity that MAPC purchases for both itself and for the MPO.

• Transit Authority is legal "host"

• Unified government

Breakdown by MPO size (percentages):

[pic]

4. What is your MPO's tax status?

Non-Profit

• 501c(3): 2

• 501c(4): 3

• 501c(6): 1

• Not specified: 6

Exempt

• Government: 26

• Not specified: 25

5. How many Full Time Employees (FTE) does your MPO have?

Mean: 12.6

Median: 5.5

6. What is your UZA population?

Mean: 980,335

Median: 208,000

7. How much PL funding does your MPO receive each year?

Mean: $924,693

Median: $302,000

8. How much 5303 funding does your MPO receive each year?

Mean: $264,156

Median: $62,110

9. How do you derive your local match?

[pic]

Other:

• 75% State IKS, 25% from local contract contributions

• Assessment of members

• Both state & local contributions, transit authority contributions as well

• County

• County transportation commissions and other agencies

• In-kind (2)

• In-kind services from state and local agencies

• Local Dues + $30K/year state appropriation

• Local with some state match

• Regional funds

• State, local, tpke authority, transit org's

• Toll revenue credits from state

10. Please describe:

• State provides all local match to PL (20%) in the form of in-kind services -State provides 1/2 local match to FTA 5303 (10%) the remaining 1/2 local match (10%) is provided equally by Manatee and Sarasota Counties (Sarasota/Manatee MPO)

• 3 participating road agencies contribute proportional share based on population (Battle Creek Area Transportation Study)

• All of the match is provided by Lead Planning Agency - City government. (French Broad River MPO)

• Annual dues paid by local units of government within the planning area. (La Crosse Area Planning Committee)

• Based on % of pop in each jurisdiction (Calhoun Area MPO)

• CA TDA and agency general funds (Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization)

• City and county dues and in-kind contributions (Association of Central Oklahoma Governments)

• City and County each pay 1/2 of 9.51% local match (Cheyenne MPO)

• City general fund (Huntsville Area Transportation Study)

• City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation - Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority - Orange County Transportation Authority - Ventura County Transportation Commission (Southern California Association of Governments)

• City provides local match for 5303 (Brownsville)

• City provides local match for Section 5303 (Ocala/Marion County)

• City, county, state, transit authority depending on project (Corpus Christi MPO)

• Currently the State picks up the required match. The State is, however, in the process of gradually shifting the required match to the MPOs. (Corvallis Area MPO)

• Each city and county member of INRCOG pay dues based on their population. The dues are used for the local match requirement. (Black Hawk Metropolitan Area Transportation Policy Board)

• Each municipality pays according to population distribution (High Point Urban Area MPO)

• Each of the jurisdictions provide the 20% match to the 80% federal PL, CMAQ, SPR, 5303 or STP funds allocated through the unified planning work program. (Evansville Urban Transportation Study)

• For PL, the local match is soft match in the form of toll revenue credits granted to the MPO by the State of Florida. For 5303, local match is local funding provided to the MPO on a per capita basis, using the most current population estimate. (Pensacola, Okaloosa-Walton & Panama City)

• From member jurisdictions (Puget Sound Regional Council)

• Funds that support the Metro Planning Commission from local government are used as local match for federal grants (Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization, Jeff Welch)

• In kind by state (Sherman - Denison)

• In-kind (SJTPO)

• In-kind services provided. City covers salaries of most staff positions, providing a basis for this. (Greensboro Urban Area MPO)

• Local match is derived from each individual jurisdictional entity's local funding allocation. (South Eastern Council of Governments)

• Local match provided under regional service agreement; some state funding used for match in specific program areas. (Bloomington-Normal, Illinois (McLean County))

• Local member governments provide match from dues. State of Kentucky provides 25% of non-federal matching share for PL funds (Kentuckiana Regional Planning & Development Agency)

• Match Federal CPG (combined PL and 5303) with 20% local match based on per vote share of the municipalities in the Planning Boundary (Dixie MPO)

• Match for AR funding is 20% in cash by city. Match for TX funding is by in-kind match from state at 20% statewide. (Texarkana MPO)

• Member entities (local governments) provide match in their respective budgeting process (Macon County Regional Planning Commission Member local governments pay 25 cents per capita population. All authorities pay approx. $14,000 per year. (First Coast MPO)

• Membership assessment (Thurston Regional Planning Council)

• Most match come from the local but one of our two states provides state funds that are used as match (GF-EGF MPO)

• New York State provides 3/4 of non-federal share (15% of total work) as part of its primary contracts with FHWA and FTA. Third party contract between NYSDOT and the transit authority (on behalf of the MPO) includes only the 85% balance. For every $80 in federal funding in the third party contract, CDTC provides $5 in locally-funded activity. CDTC has more than ample contractual work with localities to support the local match requirement. (Capital District Transportation Committee)

• Non-Federal share is 75% State, 25% local; both delivered as in-kind services, not cash (Binghamton Metropolitan Transportation Study)

• ODOT provides cash match for PL. Transit District provides in-kind match for 5303. (Lane Council of Governments)

• phones and internet/email connections provided by DelDOT, participation in MPO projects by local government staff and DelDOT staff (Dover/Kent County MPO)

• PL - State 100% of match Section 5303 - State: 61% of match; Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority: 24% of match; Metropolitan Area Planning Council: 15% of match. (Boston)

• PL matched by state with "soft" match (Palm Beach MPO, Randy Whitfield)

• Prorated among 4 member entities (3 cities, 1 county) based on population (Farmington MPO)

• Smaller municipalities do not contribute to match. (Chatham Urban Transportation Study (Savannah))

• State 10%, local 10%. Some funds passed through to transit authority which matches 10% and some to the planning commission which has matched 20%, but we hope this year it will be 10% (CCMPO)

• State and local in-kind contributions - office space, parking pass (Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council)

• State appropriation is $30/K per year for all regional planning organizations (MPOs and PDDs). Local dues are assessed on a per capita basis using the most recent decennial census. Currently at 85¢ per capita per annum. (Metroplan)

• State contributes match requirement on behalf of local governments. (Laredo)

• State DOT provides non-federal match by providing in-kind services to the MPOs. (Capital Area MPO)

• State provides match for MPO staff and locals provide match for pass through to locals. (NYMTC(New York Metropolitan Transportation Council))

• The City picks up entire match with local funds from the General Fund of the City. (Rockford Area Transportation Study)

• The MPO is the City Of Lincoln (Lincoln MPO)

• The State DOT provides in-kind match and local agencies provide both in-kind and cash match in varying amounts on each project. On the entire UPWP, the State provides 15% of the match and the local agencies provide the remaining 5%. (Genesee Transportation Council)

• The State provides the local match for all MPOs in Texas. It is an in-kind match that is provided through assistance from the District Office's in each area. (San Antonio-Bexar County MPO)

• The study area is now the same as the MSA boundary...dues are from local governments based on 55 cents/capita for those with professional planning staffs, and 89 cents/capita for those without staffs. We do receive $28,000 in general funds from the state legislature (not the state Dept. of Trans.). (Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission

• The Unified Government of Athens-Clarke County pays the local match since we are employed by them and at their disposal more so than the other counties we serve. (Madison Athens-Clarke Oconee Regional Transportation Study (MACORTS))

• Two counties in MPO provide PL match. Transit Agency matches 5303 planning funds. Some state match is available for 5303. (Greenville Area Transportation Study)

• TxDOT provides local match for our PL funding (San Antonio - Bexar County MPO)

• We apply a portion of state regional transportation planning funds as match to federal aid "in lieu of" their membership dues and for mutually agreed upon priority projects (Tri-County Regional Planning Commission)

• We bill the Colorado Dept. of Transportation for their 80% and our local membership for their 20% (broken down to the member governments by population for their share of the local match) (North Front Range MPO)

• We have principally received these funds from the time contributed by our larger cities and Maricopa County. $919,226 (Maricopa Association of Governments)

• We use a formula based on the motor fuel tax collected by each of the 12 communities to calculate the percentage of the match each unit of government must provide. (Peoria/Pekin Urbanized Area Transportation Study)

• We utilize the value of locally-funded planning studies as in-kind local match for the UPWP. This requires written agreement from the sponsoring local governments, and documentation of their actual expenditures to guarantee that the local expenditures have been made. (Mid-America Regional Council)

11. Does your MPO have a source of funding other than PL/5303?

[pic]

12. Is it:

[pic]

Other:

• Capital Funds (STP, CMAQ), planning services to localities under contract; excess local cash match provided in support of consultant studies.

• CMAQ or STP

• Federal

• Federal

• Federal STP

• Fees for service

• FHWA/MassHighway SPR, MBTA, other

• FTA

• FTA 5307

• grants and contracts

• Not sure

• Other FHWA, state and local

• Project sponsor contributions & STP

• RSTP

• SPR or STP for projects (occasionally)

• State & Local match

• State and Federal

• State and local

• State and Local

• State and Local

• State, local, transit agencies, port authorities

• STP Attributable

• STP Metro

• We sometimes also receive SP&R funds as a pass through, and supplement with other grant money or pass through funding as it is available

13. Please describe:

$1,218,900 - MassHighway SPR; $830,400 MBTA; $68,300 Other (Massport, USDOT Volpe Center, City of Somerville) (Boston)

-State Transportation Disadvantaged Commission -Local funds for lobbying and other activities (Sarasota/Manatee MPO)

A portion of STP funds may be used for project planning but it does not support the MPO operation. (Dixie MPO)

A portion of the Federal STP funds are used planning programming and monitoring (Kern Council of Government)

a small amount of FTA 5307 funds for transit planning (PACTS)

Additional funding is provided by county and municipalities under regional service agreement; GIS program funding is provided by consortium participants (county, municipalities, township, E-911, etc.) under terms of separate agreement. (Bloomington-Normal, Illinois (McLean County))

Annual grant from the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged. (First Coast MPO)

As a Planning Commission, we receive funding from the three counties that are our governing board, we solicit grants from various state agencies(Dept. of Natural Resources, IEPA, etc), and provide services for local units of government on a contractual basis. (Peoria/Pekin Urbanized Area Transportation Study)

As described above. CDTC provides project development support (traffic forecasts, diversion analysis, etc.) to NYSDOT using STP funds. CDTC provides local planning assistance (site development review, mitigation fee calculations) under contract to municipalities. Also, CDTC requires local cash contributions equal to 25% of the face value of PL-funded consultant studies in local areas. (Capital District Transportation Committee)

City general fund (Huntsville Area Transportation Study)

Demonstration grants (Palm Beach MPO)

Economic Development Administration (Rhode Island State Planning Council)

Examples include federal TSCP funds, state non-motorized training funds, pass through 5309 funds from the transit property, SP&R funds for safety conscious planning efforts (Tri-County Regional Planning Commission--Lansing MI)

Federal = State Planning and Research (SPR) - is a federal grant award from FHWA to the Arizona Depart. Transportation in the form of a two percent set-aside from a variety of other programs. ADOT may pass-through a portion of the award to any of the state's MPOs in any given year. Surface Transportation Program (STP) - a federal grant award allocated to each state by FHWA. Annual federal legislation sub-allocates by formula the STP funds to the MPOs in the State of AZ. These funds are used for construction projects and regional planning efforts. Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) - a federal grant allocated to each state by FHWA. The use of CMAQ funds is restricted to non-attainment and maintenance areas for projects related to carbon monoxide, ozone and PM-10. Local Funding = Due and assessment paid my member agencies. (Maricopa Association of Governments)

FHWA SP&R Partnership Planning - 7/1/03 - $385,000 BA1 - $712,109 FTA 5313 (b) - 7/1/03 - $880,088 BA1 - $1,203,973 Federal Other - 7/1/03 - $5,505,357 BA1 - $6,892,879 TDA - 7/1/03 - $1,000,000 State - 7/1/03 - $378,266 BA1 - $460,216 (Southern California Association of Governments)

FTA 5313(b) (Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization)

Grants and contracts (Thurston Regional Planning Council)

Have received approval to use STP attributable funds for some special studies. (Chatham Urban Transportation Study (Savannah))

Illinois allows discretionary funds to be spent by MPO's from Special Planning & Research (SPR) as well as a State funded program called Illinois Tomorrow. (Rockford Area Transportation Study)

Local dues generate approximately 1/3 of total budget. Also generate modest earned income from investments and sales of reports and materials. (Metroplan)

Local entities pick up the difference between PL/5303 and actual costs. PL and 5303 account for about 1/3 of the MPO's basic operating costs, and I expect that percentage to go down. NMDOT has provided some one-time financial assistance through their SPR funds for the transportation model development. (Farmington MPO)

Local match is derived from local funding allocation, including but not limited to annual membership dues. (South Eastern Council of Governments)

Member entities of the RPC provide additional funds for various planning activities and purposes (Macon County Regional Planning Commission)

Most overhead expenses are covered by the City. The MPO does not pay rent, purchase vehicles, etc. (Laredo)

MPO is housed at COG - COG has urban transit grant - MPO does planning and grant management for the urban transit grant (5307) (Sherman - Denison)

One time funding made available by AHTD through State Planning Resource funds. General Transportation Planning Funds (GTPF) available from TxDOT by request with justification. GTPF monies are PL funds that have not been spent by individual MPOs after first two years of availability. (Texarkana MPO)

PL funds supplemented by some measure of City funds for certain studies, though these tend to be more city oriented in nature (i.e. pedestrian crossing treatment development. STP DA funds directed for projects & planning purposes. (Greensboro Urban Area MPO)

Primarily fees for data services (Association of Central Oklahoma Governments)

Public Lands highways (Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization)

Regional Surface Transportation Program (Tri-Cities Area)

SPR from State for a statewide transportation planning initiative aimed at local governments; STP is from a congressional earmark in TEA-21 for a specific study. (Berkshire Metropolitan Planning Organization)

STP State Local dues Transit agencies Port authorities (Puget Sound Regional Council)

TDA Sales Tax HOV Fines STA Funds (Metropolitan Transportation Commission)

The County's General Fund matches federal dollars. State Transportation Disadvantaged funding provides for one salaried position. (Broward County MPO)

The transit services from the City (Lincoln MPO)

Transportation Growth Management Program = state program providing planning funds to MPOs and other local agencies for various planning purposes. Funded using federal STP funds. MPO also receives federal SPR funds from the state for specific research projects. (Lane Council of Governments)

We supplement our process with STP funds. We also receive funding for environmental studies from project sponsors. (Wasatch Front Regional Council)

We use half of our STP Metro allotment for supporting the office and the UPWP - about $600,000 a year (but varies a bit depending upon UPWP tasks approved by our council) (North Front Range MPO)

We've been successful in securing some CMAQ, suballocated STP, SPR, and earmark planning grants to supplement our PL and 5303 funds. Most have been in response to applications to fund very specific projects or initiatives. (Mid-America Regional Council)

14. Does your MPO perform any duties in addition to those required for MPOs under Federal law?

[pic]

15. Which?

[pic]

Other:

• 911/Homeland Security Coordinator

• Area Comprehensive Plan

• Census, long range comp planning

• City transportation planning functions

• Commuter ridesharing agency

• Designated Planning Agency for Florida's Transportation Disadvantaged Program

• Environmental documents, local rezoning, sub division comments, site development plan comments with regard to land use and transportation impacts, review traffic impact studies, citizen complaints, DOT/FHWA project management team members, etc.

• Environmental Planning, other regional infrastructure, technical assistance as requested

• Environmental studies for some major highway and transit projects. Also, as AOG we are responsible for managing small cities CDBG Program

• GIS

• GIS programming

• GIS, state guide plan, review and approve local comprehensive plans

• In-house traffic counting program.

• ITS operator/Street & Highway Agency

• Local planning/engineering assistance; project development support; clean communities coordination

• Operational Programs such as Fastrak, 511, Freeway Service Patrol, Bridge Financing

• Ozone Early Action Plan

• Population estimates; water and solid waste planning

• Regional Council Programs, including water quality, regional E-911 systems operations, intergovernmental programs

• Regional GIS, Public Agency Telephone Utility, Public Television and Video

• Regional Rideshare Agency

• Regional van pool service

• Safety programs

• State Housing requirements and Affiliate Census Data Center

• Street Name Clearinghouse

• Technical support for implementing agencies

• Transit grant writing

Section - Who does the following for your MPO:

16. Web

[pic]

17. Email

[pic]

18. Computers

[pic]

19. IT

[pic]

20. Other technical

[pic]

21. Accounting/bookkeeping

[pic]

22. Payroll

[pic]

23. Other financial

[pic]

24. Printing

[pic]

25. General admin

[pic]

Section - Please describe how your state distributes the following types of funding among its MPOs/other agencies:

26. PL

• $ 50,000 base for each MPO, with remaining PL distributed based on population (Battle Creek Area Transportation Study)

• $275,000-$300,000 for every MPO (26). The balance is distributed by population based formula with MPOs in Maintenance Areas receiving additional funds. AMPO dues and Florida Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council funded off the top. (First Coast MPO)

• % of St. urban pop (Huntsville Area Transportation Study)

• Base allocation of $70,000 for each complete UZA - PSRC has three UZAs - Remaining fund based on population adjusted for UZAs with AQ conformity responsibilities (PSRC is one) - MPOs with AQ responsibilities are given 20% addition to population factor. (Puget Sound Regional Council)

• 1/2 evenly distributed, 1/2 by population (High Point Urban Area MPO)

• 2% minimum guarantee to each of 4 MPO's in Utah times % MPO share of Census 2000 Statewide Urbanized Population (Dixie MPO)

• 4 MPOs - partially based on population (Farmington MPO)

• 50 Equal Share/50 UZA Population (Gaston Urban Area)

• 50 percent equal share / 50 percent by population - Although changes are being discussed. (French Broad River MPO)

• A 50% 2000 census UZA population and a 50% equal share provision. No funds currently held off top for MPO association or other uses. (Greensboro Urban Area MPO)

• A formula based on area, roads, population (Macon County Regional Planning Commission)

• A formula based on population, VMT and road miles (I think) (PACTS)

• About 25-30,000 base amount per MPO. The rest distributed on a formula based on MPO's urbanized population. (Chatham Urban Transportation Study (Savannah))

• According to a formula based on population (Boston)

• Agreed formula (Thurston Regional Planning Council)

• Agreed upon Shared Cost Initiatives taken off the top; Each MPO receives a base of $150,000 80% of the remaining money is distributed to all MPOs based on population and Federal-aid system lane mileage 20% of the remaining money is distributed only to TMAs on the same formula NOTE that FAT 5303 is distributed the same way, with a base of $20,000 and the formula based only on population (Binghamton Metropolitan Transportation Study)

• Air quality and population (Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization)

• Allocated through state DOT. (Bloomington-Normal, Illinois)

• AR: By population only. TX: For non-TMAs - $50,000 minimum plus distribution based on population. (Texarkana MPO)

• Base allocation + population % (Ocala/Marion County)

• Base plus additional allocation by population plus a small amount of additional money if designated non-attainment or maintenance area for air quality (Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization)

• Based on an agreed-upon formula allocation among the state's MPO's and the cognizant agent. The formula is based on population. (Maricopa Association of Governments)

• Based on pop in UZA (Calhoun Area MPO)

• Based on population (Bismarck/Mandan MPO

• Based on population (Auburn-Opelika Urbanized Area (LRCOG))

• Based on population, VMT, and lane miles (Kittery Area Comprehensive Transportation Committee)

• Based on the population of Urbanized Area (Corvallis Area MPO)

• Based population of urbanized area (Southeast AR. Reg. Pl. Comm.)

• By formula (Sarasota/Manatee MPO)

• By formula based on a hold-harmless floor and by proportion of total urbanized population in state. (Berkshire Metropolitan Planning Organization)

• By formula, using a minimum base value and distributing the rest by formula. (Same for FTA planning funds.) A portion of the PL and FTA funds are held back for "shared cost initiatives" identified by the MPO association, and not allocated to individual MPOs. (Capital District Transportation Committee)

• By formula to each MPO (Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council)

• By population (Dover/Kent County MPO)

• By population (San Antonio - Bexar County MPO)

• By population (RTC of Southern Nevada)

• By population with a minimum allocation for small COGs (Kern Council of Governments)

• Combined with 5303 into one Consolidated Planning Grant administered by FTA and then distributed by the state to the MPOs based on population but with a floor amount for the two smallest MPOs. (North Front Range MPO, Cliff Davidson)

• Divided per capita based on percentage of urbanized population (Metroplan)

• DOT decides how much we get (Sherman - Denison)

• Each MPO receives a base amount plus an amount based of each MPO's population percentage of the total state urbanized area population (Pensacola, Okaloosa-Walton & Panama City)

• Formula based (Association of Central Oklahoma Governments)

• Formula (SJTPO)

• Formula (Lafayette)

• Formula (Fredericksburg Area MPO)

• Formula (Roanoke Valley Area MPO)

• Formula (NYMTC(New York Metropolitan Transportation Council)

• Formula based on base amount needed to fund one position plus proportion of total state-wide MPO population (Lane Council of Governments)

• formula based on population and a preset base minimum (Tri-County Regional Planning Commission--Lansing MI)

• Formula based on population and air quality status (Capital Area MPO)

• Formula based on population, road miles and VMT (Androscoggin Transportation Resource Center)

• Formula based on population. (Rockford Area Transportation Study)

• Formula: fixed minimum amount (about $25,000) to each MPO; Bonus amount to each TMA of about $50,000; and the balance apportioned by UZA population (Greenville Area Transportation Study)

• Funding for studies and other work is programmed in our Overall Work Program. (Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization)

• Funding formula (Broward County MPO)

• Funds are distributed based on a statewide formula that considers population, lane miles, and several other factors. (Genesee Transportation Council)

• GDOT passes them down based on population (Madison Athens-Clarke Oconee Regional Transportation Study (MACORTS))

• Indiana - formula based on sustaining amount for each MPO, remainder based on population. Kentucky - formula based on population (Kentuckiana Regional Planning & Development Agency)

• Missouri - Funds distributed by formula that provides a base allocation of $50,000 per MPO, plus $50,000 for TMA designation, plus $100,000 for air quality non-attainment or maintenance status. The remainder is proportional based on urbanized area population. Kansas - proportional based on urbanized area population. (Mid-America Regional Council)

• MPO distribution at 7/1/03 (Revised) TMPO - $331,837 Madera - $394, 152 Kings - $396,433 Shasta - $398, 679 Butte - $434,169 Merced - $453, 996 San Luis Obispo - $452,567 Tulare - $569,766 Santa Barbara - $565,684 Stanislaus - $630,349 San Joaquin - $730,302 Kern - $791,757 AMBAG - $775,798 Fresno - $885,012 SA COG - $1,691,516 SANDAG - $2,292,097 MTC - $4,955,107 SCAG - $12,305,951 The percentage of the California apportionment of FHWA PL and FTA 5303 each MPO receives is determined by a formula agreed to by the MPOs, Department and FHWA/FTA. The FHWA PL formula has two components: a two-part population component which distributes funds by the proportion of the total population of each MPO based on Calif. Depart. of Finance estimates each January. And two, an air quality component based on the proportion of federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality funds to total programmatic FHWA PL funds. The FTA 5303 formula has two components: a base allocation and a population component which distributes funds according to the MPO's percentage of statewide urbanized area population as of the most recent decennial census. (Southern California Association of Governments)

• MPO receives 100% (CCMPO)

• On a formula with a base for each MPO (there are four MPOs in Utah) and the remaining amount by population (Wasatch Front Regional Council)

• Per capita, based on the pro-rated share of the state's overall urbanized area population. (Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission)

• PL funds are distributed to the MPOs based on a per capita bases utilizing the population as determined in the Census. (Black Hawk Metropolitan Area Transportation Policy Board)

• PL funds to the state DOT are divided 25% to each of the two MPO's in the State. Other 50% is kept by the DOT for other planning work or by the MPO's if needed. (Cheyenne MPO)

• Population (Hattiesburg-Petal-Forrest-Lamar Metropolitan Planning Organization, Christine Brown)

• Population based formula (Corpus Christi MPO)

• Population with a base amount (GF-EGF MPO)

• Some pass through to non-profits and sub-regional planning agencies no more than $50,000 - $100,000 per year based on requests received (Rhode Island State Planning Council)

• Talk to the Illinois Department of Transportation (Kankakee Area Transportation Study)

• Texas distributed PL-funds through a specific formula with the following set-asides: $50,000 minimum allocation to all MPO's, additional $50,000 to TMA's, and $50,000 to non-attainment areas. The remaining funds are distributed through a percentage of each area's urbanized area population in relation to that of the State. (San Antonio-Bexar County MPO)

• The FHWA Planning apportionment to California, roughly $29 million in FY 2003, is distributed to the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) based on three components: 1) base amount; 2) air quality component; and 3) population percentage. Specifically, the base amount was set during ISTEA and grows or contracts with the year's appropriation as compared to the prior year. The base amount was established based on the population category that the MPO fits within, such as less than 1 million, greater than 3 million, etc. MTC and SCAG receive the same base amount because they are both greater than 3 million. The CMAQ component is the percentage of the planning funds generated from CMAQ and is distributed based on a weighted population percentage. The weighting is calculated by the carbon monoxide (CO) and ozone factors of each area. The last component is the remaining funds and is distributed by population. (Metropolitan Transportation Commission)

• The state, along with the Council of Governments, executes a contract in an amount reflected in the approved annual work program. The monies within that contract are suballocated via contracts between the Council of Governments and the individual jurisdictional entities (1 municipality; 2 counties). (South Eastern Council of Governments)

• Through a Policy Board and a Technical Board made up of the units of government in the urbanized area. (Peoria/Pekin Urbanized Area Transportation Study)

• Through a sharing agreement with the 13 MPOs that make up the MPO council. It is a collaborative process with the state DOT (Evansville Urban Transportation Study)

• Through formula, which is developed by the State in consultation with the state association of MPOs. (Laredo)

• Two of the three MPOs in the State are TMAs. The others are funded by formulas and project specific assistance. (Lincoln MPO)

• Virginia allocates PL funds based on urbanized area population as documented by the latest decennial U.S. census. Consideration is given to air quality status. Each urbanized area is allocated a base amount of $50,000 and the balance of PL funds are distributed based on urbanized area population. (Tri-Cities Area)

27. STP (if applicable)

• % of St. urban pop. , politics , ec development opportunities (Huntsville Area Transportation Study)

• Federal distribution method - By agreement with state and other statewide transportation interests PSRC receives 22% of state STP flexible funds (Puget Sound Regional Council)

• 1/3 by road miles, 2/3 by population (Kern Council of Governments)

• Agreed formula (Thurston Regional Planning Council)

• Allocated through state DOT based on project requests from local governments vetted for consistency through MPO. (Bloomington-Normal, Illinois (McLean County))

• Allocates directly to urban cities; based on population of urban cities and base amount (GF-EGF MPO, Earl Haugen)

• As I understand it, it is done by written request (Macon County Regional Planning Commission)

• At states discretion (Bismarck/Mandan MPO)

• Attributable (Tri-County Regional Planning Commission--Lansing MI)

• Attributable area (Kentuckiana Regional Planning & Development Agency)

• Based on population (Battle Creek Area Transportation Study)

• Based on population, VMT, and lane miles (Kittery Area Comprehensive Transportation Committee)

• Based on the population of Urbanized Area (Corvallis Area MPO)

• By formula (San Antonio - Bexar County MPO)

• By formula (Sarasota/Manatee MPO)

• By population (Wasatch Front Regional Council)

• Competitively (Lafayette)

• Congressional district balancing required for most types of projects. State assigns STP funds and designates TIP projects. MPO negotiates flexing of STP attributable funds for certain planning studies. (Chatham Urban Transportation Study (Savannah))

• Direct allocation to the individual jurisdiction (i.e. municipality). (South Eastern Council of Governments)

• Direct suballocation (Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization)

• Distributed by state based upon population to the three TMA-type MPOs. (North Front Range MPO)

• Don't know and State DOT does not tell us. (Genesee Transportation Council)

• DOT decides how much we get (Sherman - Denison)

• Each year the MPO receives STP funds from the State primarily based on a per capita formula, utilizing the study area boundary. (Black Hawk Metropolitan Area Transportation Policy Board)

• FDOT could better explain (First Coast MPO)

• For FY 2004 only: AHTD provided STP funds up to an amount equal to funding level prior to addition of two new MPOs in order to maintain TEA-21 funding levels until new federal bill passed. (Texarkana MPO)

• Formula (SJTPO)

• Formula (Fredericksburg Area MPO)

• Formula based (Association of Central Oklahoma Governments)

• Formula based, although as a TMA (over 200,000 pop) we believe that STP funds should be directly suballocated to the TMAs. (Rockford Area Transportation Study)

• Formula to Regions, competitive with MPOs (NYMTC(New York Metropolitan Transportation Council))

• Funding formula (Broward County MPO)

• GDOT passes down by congressional district (Madison Athens-Clarke Oconee Regional Transportation Study (MACORTS))

• In accordance with federal law, the revenue estimates for the MAG Transportation Improvement Plan are cooperatively developed with the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). To accomplish this task, ADOT uses a Resources Allocation Advisory Committee (RAAC) to monitor the funding amounts to the state and sub-regions throughout Arizona. (Maricopa Association of Governments)

• Missouri and Kansas - suballocate required funds to TMAs; unsure as to any distribution to other MPOs. (Mid-America Regional Council

• Population (Hattiesburg-Petal-Forrest-Lamar Metropolitan Planning Organization)

• Projects selected and ranked by MPOs (Wisconsin). Projects selected and ranked by an Area Transportation Partnership of which the MPO is a member (Minnesota) (La Crosse Area Planning Committee)

• State Equity Formula - established by State Legislature. Money is distributed to seven funding regions, with two highway divisions in each region. There is no formula for direct distribution to MPOs. (French Broad River MPO)

• State has an apportionment formula that allocates STP and a portion of NHS to each MPO and to each rural area in proportion to population. MPO population is based on census year population within the MPO boundary. Formula is being examined for revisions. (Greenville Area Transportation Study)

• Statewide functions of bridge repair, resurfacing, etc. are taken off the top. Capacity funds are provided to FDOT districts by formula: 50% is gas tax collections and 50% is population. (Pensacola, Okaloosa-Walton & Panama City)

• STP DA may be directed by TMAs. Other STP funds directed in consultation with MPOs. (Greensboro Urban Area MPO)

• STP is distributed strictly by urbanized area population. (San Antonio-Bexar County MPO)

• STPMM based on urbanized area population (Capital Area MPO)

• Suballocated to MPOs over 200,000 and discretionary to those under 200,000 in pop (Calhoun Area MPO)

• Suballocated to TMAs (2) by formula. Politics decides the rest. We flex some STP every year to supplement the PL, which is inadequate to fund the planning requirements in a minimum guarantee state. (Metroplan)

• The Policy Board and the Technical Board submit applications for projects, which are judged under an established list of criteria, and voted upon. (Peoria/Pekin Urbanized Area Transportation Study)

• The same formula that Congress uses to distribute STP, NHS and Min Guarantee funds to the states. (PACTS)

• The state distributes STP funds based on the following methodology: Of the STP total apportionment (including any RABA and minimum guarantee adjustments), 10% is earmarked for safety, 10% is earmarked for Transportation Enhancements, and 80% is distributed to the areas of the state. The distribution of the 80% is further divided into 62.5% to the Regions and 37.5% is dedicated to the State for a statewide transportation program. The 62.5% is further divided into two categories based on the respective population share in the two categories: urbanized areas over 200,000 and areas less than 200,000. Once the determination of the apportionments to the two categories have been made, the sub apportionment method within the two categories is the same. From the funding apportionments to the two areas (essentially urbanized and non-urbanized categories), the funds are distributed to the regions based on their population share in their category. (Metropolitan Transportation Commission)

• TIP development includes - prepare initial project proposals, evaluation based on criteria, selection of projects. There is local, regional and state DOT input. (Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council)

• Urban areas over 200,000 by ISTEA (RTC of Southern Nevada)

• Varies by use, at State's discretion. Three totally rural regions in state receive transportation planning funds from SPR. Currently a community level transportation planning effort was funded utilizing SPR at $10,000 per participating town or city. (Berkshire Metropolitan Planning Organization)

• Virginia allocates RSTP based on urbanized area population as documented by the latest decennial census. (Tri-Cities Area)

28. CMAQ (if applicable)

• 100% state decision (SJTPO)

• After the state takes some off the top for special projects, the allocation is based on severity of air quality x population (Knoxville Regional Transportation Planning Organization)

• Agreed formula (Thurston Regional Planning Council)

• All transferred to above (GF-EGF MPO)

• Based on population of qualifying areas (Battle Creek Area Transportation Study)

• CMAQ funds are distributed via a statewide competitive application process. (Black Hawk Metropolitan Area Transportation Policy Board)

• Federal formula in cooperation with state (Puget Sound Regional Council)

• Formula (Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization)

• Formula (Fredericksburg Area MPO)

• Formula to Regions, competitive with MPOs (NYMTC(New York Metropolitan Transportation Council))

• Funding formula applied to non-attainment and maintenance areas. (Broward County MPO)

• In accordance with federal law, the revenue estimates for the MAG Transportation Improvement Plan are cooperatively developed with the Arizona Department of Transportation. To accomplish this task, ADOT uses a Resources Allocation Advisory Committee to monitor the funding amounts to the state and sub-regions throughout Arizona. Although the CMAQ funds are statewide in nature, all of the CMAQ funds are currently being provided to the MAG region through the RAAC process described above. (Maricopa Association of Governments

• In consultation with MPOs; some earmarking to transit and other purposes. (Greensboro Urban Area MPO)

• Indiana - some distributed by formula (Kentuckiana Regional Planning & Development Agency)

• Missouri - funds are distributed by formula (same one that allocates funds to the states) between St. Louis non-attainment area and Kansas City maintenance area. Kansas - Funds are split based on population proportion between Kansas City and Wichita. Part of Kansas City funds are attributable to maintenance status; remainder is minimum allocation to the state. (Mid-America Regional Council)

• Population - to each non-attainment area or maintenance area. (North Front Range MPO)

• Suballocated to MPOs (RTC of Southern Nevada)

• The State follows the federal CMAQ formulas for apportioning the funds among the various nonattainment areas. The fund distribution is based on population and the severity of non-attainment of air quality standards. The population of each state multiplied by the non-attainment factor multiplied by the CO factor. The resultant figure is the weighted population. Apportionments are distributed based on a non-attainment areas share of the weighted population figures. (Metropolitan Transportation Commission)

• This MPO though in a Maintenance Area, does not receive CMAQ. (First Coast MPO)

• Through a formula similar to the federal distribution. weighted based on severity and population and dedicated to the non attainment areas (Evansville Urban Transportation Study)

• To the MPOs with non-attainment or maintenance areas (there are two MPOs in Utah that are non-attainment or maintenance), UDOT allocates all the CMAQ by population. UDOT does not keep any CMAQ funds, but lets the MPOs program it all. (Wasatch Front Regional Council)

• Using federal formula to sub-allocate (Capital District Transportation Committee)

• Virginia has elected to allocate CMAQ funds on the basis of nonattainment/maintenance area population. (Tri-Cities Area)

• Voluntary STP contribution by state as all areas are in attainment (Association of Central Oklahoma Governments)

29. Does your state have a statewide/regional MPO association and/or a statewide/regional MPO meeting?

[pic]

At least one MPO from each of the following states answered “Yes” to this question: AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO, FL, GA, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MI, MS, NC, NM, NY, ND, OK, OR, SC, SD, TX, TN, UT, VA, WA, WI.

30. Is there a designated staff person to run it?

[pic]

31. Is their position:

[pic]

Other:

• Combination of host MPO and DOT

• Consultant (4 – all same state)

• Elected volunteer by MPOs

• DOT provides staff

• One of the 25 MPO directors

• We trade hosting duties between the 5 MPOs

At least one MPO from each of the following states reports having a full time staff person to run statewide MPO meetings: FL, IA, MS, ND, OK, SD, WA.

32. Any additional comments:

Although this MPO is considered a large TMA, the number of FTE's is low because in the past, the MPO has distributed money to partner agencies to assist in completing the work associated with federal transportation planning requirements. (San Antonio-Bexar County MPO)

As a new MPO, the biggest hurdle is maintaining the elected officials' interest while the operating framework and institutional issues are settled. There's a tremendous mismatch between the federal requirements and the financial support they provide. All 4 New Mexico MPOs plus El Paso meet quarterly. (Farmington MPO)

Cooperation, Coordination, Comprehensive planning between MPO and local planning programs and projects is not required, but should be. In our case the two levels of government are working in conjunction with each other, but that is an exception rather than the norm. Local land use planning directly impacts the transportation system (network) - - all modes. The MPO should offer incentives for coordination of local planning plans and programs. (Lafayette)

Each new MPO should have a designated mentor MPO (Metroplan)

Even though I took over the Grand Junction-Mesa County MPO some six or seven years after it was formed, I became the first full-time employee and director of the MPO. That meant essentially "creating" a new one. You must have a full-time person dedicated to the MPO or it just plods along, doing only the minimum needed to meet the regs. Once you have at least the one full-time director, my suggestion is to focus on creating and maintaining the forum of elected officials and the appointed officials - the TAC - at the same time. You can't put off the elected officials forum or once again the MPO just slides along. Then get after a regional GIS and travel demand modeling for the entire region - no competing models - and, if air quality non-attainment, the Mobile 6 model. You have to establish your role in the region - a good regional thoroughfare plan, or major street plan being a good first planning task. The idea is to focus the MPO on data and information - something elected officials clamor for because regional data is so often not readily available. Regional GIS can be created from local GIS installations with data trades established, but the travel demand model should be the exclusive service of the MPO. (North Front Range MPO)

Florida MPO Advisory Council is created by statute. The Executive Director is full-time and his budget comes out of the state's PL allocation. (Pensacola, Okaloosa-Walton & Panama City)

Indiana has an MPO council; Kentucky does not. (Kentuckiana Regional Planning & Development Agency)

MaineDOT has an MPO Coordinator who works 1/2 to 3/4 time in that role (PACTS)

Meetings are coordinated by, and are held at the capital city (Little Rock) MPO...Metroplan (Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission)

Minnesota has an organization held together by a MNDOT staff person that now has about 25% of time devoted to MPO; North Dakota has a loose organization without any designated staff - we all take our turn (GF-EGF MPO)

MPO funds one half position at local transit agency. (Chatham Urban Transportation Study (Savannah))

NCAMPO meets every two months. They have an annual conference, and focus on common issues (legislative, policy, relationships), information sharing, and etc. They have a board with a Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary. Currently rely on volunteer labor, put looking at other options. Currently trying to develop a new PL distribution formula for consideration of NCDOT. (Greensboro Urban Area MPO)

Not an MPO association (federal designation). But there is a statewide RTPA association (state designation) that meets and works with the CTC. There also is a California Council of Governments (Metropolitan Transportation Commission)

Please substitute Regional Council for MPO for this survey. #15 - MAG is the designated Air Quality, Water Quality and Solid Waste Planning Agency. The State requires MAG to do population updates and projections, approve material cost changes in the Transportation Plan, and develop a regional human services plan. #29 - COGs and MPOs meet through the Arizona COG Director's Association, which has a Chair selected by the group who serves on a voluntary basis. (Maricopa Association of Governments

Questions 27-31 are not applicable. The RI State planning Council is the single MPO for the whole state. (Rhode Island State Planning Council)

Regarding # 29, the 4 MPO's meet during ReAuth and annual Congressional Appropriations planning. We have a statewide Utah ReAuth and Appropriations Principals understanding, but we have not yet established a formal ongoing structure to share information and ideas, although we do cooperate informally on many issues and resource / practices & needs. It is being discussed. (Dixie MPO)

Statewide MPO association in Texas is Texas Association of MPOs (TEMPO). Chairman and Executive Committee elected from MPO staffs. $10,000 in funding for TEMPO activities such as travel comes from GTPF. Statewide MPO association in Arkansas is Arkansas Association of MPOs (AAMPO). Expenses are covered by individual MPOs. (Texarkana MPO)

The MPO council is co chaired by two MPO directors, with sub committees filled with MPO directors and FHWA and state DOT folks that work to resolve all issues. (Evansville Urban Transportation Study)

The MPO's in Georgia are loosely affiliated. We have an annual MPO conference that is organized between the MPO's and GDOT. This year there was an additional partnering with the Georgia Planning Association. The areas however are pretty good about networking if problems arise. (Madison Athens-Clarke Oconee Regional Transportation Study (MACORTS))

The Puget Sound Regional Council (parent organization) serves as a single purpose MPO (Puget Sound Regional Council)

The State MPO Meeting is incorporated into the Alabama Planners Association Meeting that is held once a year. (Auburn-Opelika Urbanized Area (LRCOG))

The survey doesn't capture the nature of our organization. The MPO is part of a department that is best characterized as a matrix organization - largely project driven. Each individual, including the core MPO staff participate on many projects over a given year. MPO staff could spend as much as 30-40% of their time working in other areas and we will pull in people from other parts of the agency to accomplish specific MPO tasks. We find this allows us to make the best use of our MPO funds. (Lane Council of Governments)

There is a Massachusetts Association of Regional Planning Agencies (MARPA) and because the boundaries of the RPAs and the MPOs are identical, MARPA tends to be highly involved. (Boston)

This statewide body is supportive of all Regional Council Programs. (Association of Central Oklahoma Governments)

We have an excellent relationship with the Illinois Department of Transportation Office of Planning and Programming, and rely on them to handle much of what would be done by a separate office coordinating MPOs. We have irregular meetings to discuss the issues, and should have more regular meetings. (Kankakee Area Transportation Study)

With only two MPOs there isn't really a need for a state association, though I think a Mid-Atlantic association would be helpful; just haven't gotten around to suggesting it. (Dover/Kent County MPO)

-----------------------

Association of

Metropolitan

Planning

Organizations

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download