MPO REGIONAL COORDINATION STRUCTURE RESEARCH FOR THE AND BEST TAMPA BAY REGION PRACTICES Forward Pinellas Metropolitan Planning Organization 01.18.2019
Project Objectives Successful regional coordination means for Tampa Bay Identify the barriers to its execution Develop several implementable scenarios based on an examination of nationwide best practice Project Overview 01 02 03 Existing Conditions+Directions Validating Project Parameters & Goals (e.g., listening sessions) Demographic Characterization MPO- and State-Level Policy Characterizations Case Studies & Best Practices Identification of Peer Agencies Develop Case Studies Case Study Write-Up Workshops & Reporting Symposium (Workshop #2) Interim Issues Polling Workshop #3 Report Preparation
This Project Started with a Workshop May 2017 10 Topics 9 Peer MPO Studies October 2018 Today
Ten Topics These topics came from comments at the May 2017 Workshop and refined by input from the Study Management Team (steering committee) and Consultants Local v. Regional Decision-making Internal Communicati on Dispute Resolution Internal Operations Public Involvement Regional Project Implementation Regional Revenue Generation Working with State Agencies Resiliency Land Development
Nine Peer MPO Studies Individual interviews, document research helped focus research on the 10 topics Hampton Roads TPO (Virginia Beach and Norfolk, VA) MetroPlan Orlando (FL) Metro (Portland, OR) Wasatch Front Regional Council (Salt Lake City, UT) Capital Area MPO (Raleigh, NC) Nashville Area MPO (TN) Metropolitan Council (St. Paul and Minneapolis, MN) North Central Texas COG (Dallas, TX) Denver Regional COG (CO)
Project Schedule Draft Report: December 31, 2018 MPO Presentations: January 15-18, 2019 Revised Report: February 4, 2019
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE THIR D WORKSHOP 10.29.2018 7
PURPOSE & OUTCOMES Differences from the First Two Workshops MORE OPEN Two objectives: getting detailed and directed input on specific matters to help with recommendation development, but also operating a wide-open panel / forum at the end to allow people to speak their mind and ask for feedback. MORE DETAILED Scenarios and directed questions encouraged more detailed thoughts about connections between actions and organizational structures. INCLUSIVENESS, TRUST Regardless of the scenario or discussion type, inclusive decision-making and how to do that, especially building trust among regional partners, was frequently cited. 8
Workshop #3 Walk-Through 01 Full Group (60 mins) Welcome / Introduction Overview / Workshop #2 3 Pathways Overview 02.1 Breakouts (60 mins) 2 Hypothetical Scenarios* Each Group has 1 of 3 Structures 02.2 Content Half-Group Expert + Facilitator (60 mins) Remote Polling Questions *A hypothetical scenario includes a map, description of issue facing the group, one or more questions to work through. Each group has a facilitator to ask questions and access to a content expert with additional information on each 03 Full Group (90 mins) Report Out Open Forum / Panel of Actions: Pros, Cons, Ifs 9
TWO SCENARIOS Hypothetical, but with Similarities to this Region A B Tables of 4 10 People + Facilitator Two Hypothetical Scenarios Three Questions for Each Scenario Focus on Process Concerns; most solutions were inclusive of regional and collaborative initiatives regardless of MPO structure 10
HELPING COMMUNITIES OF CONCERN Scenario Breakout Session: Building Bridges (a Roadway Bridge Project) Most part i ci pant s agreed regi onal col l aborat i on/ di scussi on and addressing community needs would be key regardless of structure. Governance structure alone won t sol ve t he i ssues ( al t hough one t abl e vocal l y pref erred a regi onal MPO approach). Most of t he approaches descri bed, for ei t her struct ure, i nvol ved i dent i f yi ng represent at i ves for each Communi t y of Concern or i ssue, and i nvol vi ng t hemi n t he regi onal di scussi on. Part i ci pant s i dent i f i ed advant ages of each MPO struct ure i n addressi ng t he i ssue: for a si ngl e MPO: economi es of scal e, possi bl y mo re st af f and great er resources; For t wo MPOs: pot ent i al l y mo re represent at i on of communi t i es of concern on board cl oser to t he communi t i es. 11
FUNDING THE GAP Scenario Breakout Session: Building Bridges (a Roadway Bridge Project) Not abl y mo re part i ci pant s i n t hi s di scussi on t han i n t he ot hers sai d a si ngl e MPO woul d have a cl earer regi onal voi ce, and t heref ore f i nd i t easi er to obt ai n st at e f unds to mat ch federal dol l ars. Al so t hat f undi ng and pri ori t i zat i on deci si ons for t hi s mi ght be easi er wi t h a si ngl e MPO. Some pointed to similarities with the Gateway project, and noted that the scenario doesn t requi re one MPO to move forwa rd; t he proj ect coul d happen wi t h an i nt erl ocal agreement. Two MPOs mi ght provi de great er opport uni t i es for dol l ars. Ei t her way, need some way to pul l t oget her ot her regi onal and communi t y voi ces to get t he f undi ng, not j ust MPOs. Need bot h l ocal and regi onal perspect i ves to hel p j ust i f y proj ect s t hat t he f undi ng i s used to const ruct. 12
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Scenario Breakout Session: Building Bridges (a Roadway Bridge Project) Need uniform rules for evaluating impact, but those don t necessari ly have to resi de wi t h a si ngl e MPO. Composi t i on of Boards mi ght mat t er mo re t han whet her t here i s one or t wo. Do t hey i ncl ude or l i st en to economi c and envi ronment al i nt erest s? Regi onal MPO mi ght be mo re recept i ve to envi ronment al concerns and have an easi er t i me reachi ng a concl usi on, but not resol vi ng t he i ssue. To resol ve, consi der exampl e of Weki wa Parkway t askf orce. Creat e an independent t ask force wi t h represent at i on f romal l part i es, charged wi t h maki ng consensus recommendat i ons. 13
ALUING A SMALLER COMMUNITY S INPU Scenario Breakout Session: Take the A or B Train (a Regional Transit Project) As a smal l er communi t y, Al pi na wi l l have to f i ght for i t s i nt erest s under any scenari o. May have to t ry harder under t he me rged MPO scenari o, but i n t he same si t uat i on ei t her way. Same dynami cs need to be addressed ei t her way. Looki ng for benef i t to smal l er communi t i es and not l osi ng si ght of ot her l ocal pri ori t i es. One way to address woul d be a credi bl e commi t ment to meet i ng ot her pri ori t i es l at er. 14
OBTAINING FUNDING Scenario Breakout Session: Take the A or B Train (a Regional Transit Project) No cl ear concl usi on about t he rel at i ve ef f ect i veness of any of t he possi bl e struct ures. One MPO mi ght be abl e to broker l ocal agreement s mo re ef f i ci ent l y ( because al l l ocal government s under i t s roof ). Wi l l need negot i at i on i f proj ect crosses count y l i nes, regardl ess of MPO struct ure. The conversat i on i s about pol i cy and scarci t y. Everyone wi l l be aski ng what i s i n i t for me regardl ess of struct ure. That poi nt s to t he i mport ance of t rust t hat ot hers wi l l f ol l ow through or honor t hei r commi t ment s to f ut ure act i ons and pri ori t i es. No cl ear concl usi on about t he rel at i ve ef f ect i veness of any of t he possi bl e struct ures wi t h regard to acqui ri ng mo re dol l ars. 15
20 questions (More Like 10) Anonymous Polling for Multiple-Choice Answers People were Encouraged to Explain their Choices The Questions were Detailed, and some Discussion Occurred to Clarify them Supported Dues, Deferring Local for Regional Projects (conditionally), Surcharge for Funding, Support for Executive Committee (conditionally) 16
Q. A decision-making structure that focuses on regionallysignificant projects more than the current structure may result in a reduction in available federal funding for one or more locallysignificant projects. Under what, if any, conditions would that be acceptable? 57% A. It would be acceptable if the decision-making process also funded locally-significant projects that were reflective of my community s needs Q. Would your community be willing to see regionallysignificant projects funded in neighboring communities while your community waits for project funding? 41% 42% A. Yes, if the project will directly benefit commuters and businesses from my community by improving regional movement of people and goods Less then 3% said it would not be acceptable under any circumstances; another 26% said it would be acceptable if projects were rotated geographically over time breakout polling questions (average of two groups) There were three possible no responses; less than 3% responded with any of them A. Yes, if the project will significantly improv e the mov ement of people and goods in the region
Q. Would you support a dues structure to support either a single MPO for the region or a single MPO staff to support multiple MPOs in the region? 50% A. Yes, I would be willing to support a dues structure for a decisionmaking structure that significantly improves the mobility in the region About 40% responded that there would have to be additional conditions; others noted that the RPC or TBARTA could host a single MPO or staff, if funded adequately breakout polling questions (average of two groups) Q. What transportation projects or activities do you think are not happening in the region because there is more than one MPO? 30% A. Premium regional transit projects (like passenger rail or bus rapid transit) Other responses included regional funding initiatives (20%) and fixing bottlenecks on regional transportation facilities (13%)
Q. Would you support changes in Florida law to permit a multicounty surcharge referendum to support regionally-significant transportation projects? 65% A. Yes It depends (22%) and no (12%) were other answers; discussion centered around transparency and maintaining local control of funds - a similar question about support for a multi-county surcharge was not favored (40%) and had many more it depends answers as well (29%) Q. Do you think the region would receive more or less transportation funding from the state, federal, or other funding sources for regionallysignificant projects if there was one MPO that covered Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas Counties? 32% 26% A. Yes. We would be speaking with one voice A. Maybe. Only in conjunction with other conditions such as the availability of local matching funds About 10% thought the region would receive less funding, and about 10% thought it would receive the same amount of funding breakout polling questions (average of two groups)
Q. Would you be willing to see an executive committee empowered to make a limited ad narrowly defined set of decisions related to regionally significant projects/activities on behalf of the three core MPOs? 23% 24% A. No A. Yes, if the Executive Committee represented modal authorities or other regional stakeholders Most discussion centered around conditions, including multi-modal and proportional (e.g., population-based) representation on such a committee Q. Would you be willing to consider appointing members of the local state legislative delegation to participate as voting members to your MPO Governing Board? 52% A. No A. No, if ability to speak to representatives oneon-one was limited (77%) breakout polling questions (average of two groups) About 18% of respondents said that this could be acceptable on a regional board that covers multiple MPOs. A follow-up question asking, Would it change your opinion if you know that doing so would limit the ability of people to talk to those representatives due to Florida s Sunshine Laws? resulted in the No response increasing to 77%.
DIRECTION FOR RECOMMENDATIONS ( R E F E R T O H A N D O U T ) 21
ORE MPO PRESENTATION SCHEDULES Logistics Discussion, Time, Content HILLSBOROUGHPASCO FORWARD PINELLAS 01.15.19 01.17.19 01.18.19 22
Three TYPES OF ACTIONS High-level summary of actions roughly grouped into three pathways defined by the likelihood of major changes to existing structures, laws, agreements, etc. The shorter-term (2023) and longer-term (2033) recommendations are boxed.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE A Two-Part Approach 24
Next Steps 25
Next Steps And Scheduling Revisions to Draft Report (Technical Memo 3.1) MPO Presentations Wo rkshop 3 i nal i nput to draf t December 31, 2018 t echni cal memo 3 J anuary 15-18, 2019 MPO works hops February 4, 2019 draf t report
27