The 2002 Review of Florida’s Twenty-Five Long Range Transportation Plans

Federal and state transportation laws require that a long range transportation plan (LRTP) be developed in urban areas of greater than 50,000 people. The agency responsible for conducting the long range transportation planning process is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The Florida Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council (MPOAC) assists individual MPOs in carrying out the urbanized area transportation planning process by serving as the principal forum for collective policy discussion. In 1997, the MPOAC asked the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) at the University of South Florida to conduct a review the LRTPs of the state’s twenty-five MPOs to gain a comprehensive understanding of the issues and concerns facing Florida’s MPOs and the manner in which those issues and concerns were being assessed and documented in the long range transportation planning process. The study made several suggestions for improving the regional transportation planning process and documenting that process in the long range transportation plans, both in terms of technical approach and structure. In 2000, CUTR was asked to conduct a comparative review of the updated long range transportation plans produced by the Florida MPOs located in clean air non-attainment areas. In general, that review identified a number of improvements in various areas compared to the 1997 LRTPs. However, many of the same issues and challenges identified in the 1997 study were still apparent. In 2002, CUTR was asked to revaluate twenty-five MPO long range transportation plans. Each MPO had completed at least one update cycle since the initial review in 1997. Additionally, federal transportation legislation added a few new emphasis areas for LRTPs and provided slightly different guidance to direct the long range transportation planning process. CUTR was directed to pay particular attention to the methods used to establish project priorities, identify needs and move projects from needs plans to cost feasible plans. In general, the quality of the most recent long range transportation plans improved significantly compared to those reviewed in 1997 or 2000. Overall, plan documents were more user-friendly and concise. They also contained less jargon and richer descriptions of issues and challenges. There appeared to be a somewhat more balanced reliance on modeling and a more obvious assessment of a wider range of planning considerations than roadway level-of-service deficiency. There were numerous examples of innovative public involvement efforts and improved regional and interagency coordination. There was an increase in the consideration of potential social and community impacts in the i i decision-making process and thoughtful inclusion of community concerns into the decision-making process. A variety of methods were used to select projects for the cost feasible plan with the most popular approach being the use of a weighted prioritization formula. Almost all the MPO plans incorporated the concepts of multimodalism and intermodalism, including such alternative strategies as intelligent transportation systems (ITS), corridor management, and transportation demand management (TDM). Even so, financial shortfalls between the costs of identified needs and reasonably available revenues remained a significant and widespread phenomenon. When added together, the statewide 20-year shortfall estimate is $37.7 billion (in year 2000 dollars) — a 43% increase over the 1997 statewide shortfall estimate. Although the 2002 review identified numerous improvements in long range transportation planning around the state, additional actions could be considered. Whereas some MPOs integrated a strong visioning process and/or principles of strategic planning into their long range transportation planning processes, many did not. Almost all MPOs included goals dealing with safety and economic competitiveness, but few systematically considered these issues. Most MPOs recognized the interaction between transportation and land use in their policy statements, but alternative land use scenarios were rarely considered. All MPOs identified goals, objectives and policies to guide their long range transportation planning process, but the final list of cost feasible projects was not always clearly linked to those goals, objectives and policies. There was no statewide consistency in how needs and expected revenues were identified, what the composition of these estimates should be or how this financial information was reported. Several MPOs staged the implementation of projects included in their cost feasible plan, but few identified a specific mechanism for project programming in their long range transportation plan. + Read more