National Academies Press: OpenBook

Measuring Transportation Network Performance (2010)

Chapter: Chapter 6 - Peer-to-Peer Scenario Megaregional Partnership to Address Growth

« Previous: Chapter 5 - Peer-to-Peer Scenario Multistate Partnership for System Operations
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Peer-to-Peer Scenario Megaregional Partnership to Address Growth." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Measuring Transportation Network Performance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14425.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Peer-to-Peer Scenario Megaregional Partnership to Address Growth." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Measuring Transportation Network Performance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14425.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Peer-to-Peer Scenario Megaregional Partnership to Address Growth." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Measuring Transportation Network Performance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14425.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Peer-to-Peer Scenario Megaregional Partnership to Address Growth." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Measuring Transportation Network Performance. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14425.
×
Page 27

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

24 Scenario As metropolitan regions expand, they are becoming increas- ingly linked via economic interdependence and common transportation networks. These megaregions share common issues (including economic growth, environmental concerns, and mobility) and have an increased need to look beyond jurisdictional boundaries when planning and operating the transportation system. Megaregional planning also presents an opportunity to pool funds for more efficient use. There are many challenges to successfully conducting megaregional planning. Federal funding is not provided to megaregions, and local land use plans and decisions often conflict. MPOs in megaregions have traditionally operated within well-defined roles and clearly delineated geographic areas. Those MPOs that have adopted performance measures typically do not coordinate with other neighboring MPOs. Yet, MPOs across the United States are increasingly faced with the challenges and opportunities of collaborating with their neighboring MPOs. At least nine large megaregions in the United States have been defined by various regional plan- ners and academics, yet these are not officially recognized by the U.S. Census Bureau. Further, many MPOs originally formed as single-county regions are growing into one another. Peer-to-peer megaregional planning partnerships occur pri- marily during early planning. This is mainly because these kinds of partnerships are fairly new and there is little experience on which to base megaregional implementation structures. Case Studies The primary case study is the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) Blue- print Process and related California Partnership established for the same region. The SJV stretches from the Tehachapi Moun- tains in the south to the San Joaquin Delta in the north, nearly 300 miles. The SJV is between the large metropolitan areas of San Francisco and Los Angeles. The major transportation facilities include Interstate 5, State Route 99, the Union Pacific Railroad (UP), the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF), and air travel corridors. Numerous highways and rail lines, including State Routes 58, 46, 152, 198, and 120, also cross the Valley. Though each county has its own transit facil- ities, there is no unified transit system for the entire region. Eight MPOs, each representing a single county, are partici- pating in the SJV Blueprint Process. The region’s population is expected to double from 3.4 million to 7 million by 2050. The forecasted growth—combined with current mobility, environmental, quality-of-life, and economic development challenges—has motivated regional planning partnerships. The Blueprint Process is a multiyear planning effort that engages the general public, civic groups, business interests, the agricultural community, environmental groups, and govern- ment officials. The Blueprint Process is developing a regional vision but recognizes that decision-making power and imple- mentation remain within the region’s local jurisdictions. This megaregional partnership includes a state-mandated partnership (California Partnership), a regionwide planning process (Blueprint), and active participation of all governments in the region. The unique nature of the partnerships, the proj- ect funding source, the coordinated planning components, the high level of participation, and the data sharing are all key reasons for the success in developing a megaregional partner- ship. The process is just beginning to be implemented, so final outcomes are unknown. Other case study examples were drawn from the Central Florida MPO Alliance, the West Central Florida MPO, and the San Francisco–Sacramento interregional planning efforts. Building Blocks Establish Partnership Agreements Formal Partnership Commitments Between MPOs Because megaregional partnerships involve multiple agen- cies, partnership agreements are vital to their success. Many MPOs exchange information or attend presentations of their C H A P T E R 6 Peer-to-Peer Scenario—Megaregional Partnership to Address Growth

25 neighbors, and a few have begun to formalize partnership agreements across their boundaries. The SJV Blueprint Process is an “unprecedented example of local jurisdictions demon- strating increased regional identity and a unified purpose in addressing the region’s challenges.”6 Eight Councils of Gov- ernment (COGs) in the valley agreed to take part in the Blue- print Process. The SJV Blueprint Process has been well served by estab- lished working relationships among the partners. The eight counties are all within a regional air quality basin and have a history of working together on air quality issues. Coordinated regional planning also can identify needs for regionwide programs. The Corridor Enhancement Plan for California State Route 99 (an expressway that spans the val- ley) is a multicounty initiative that arose from the California Partnership and Blueprint Process. Collaboratively Leverage Funding for Planning, Programs, and Projects The eight COGs within the SJV used state funding, receiv- ing a $4 million grant from the state, with an additional $500,000 in matching funds from the Valley’s Air Pollution Control District. The Blueprint Process also has drawn on the work of the California Partnership (a public–private partner- ship established by executive order of the California Gover- nor with a focus on improving regional economic vitality and quality of life) to help support coordinated data collection and integration of regional needs. Assistance from Outside Organizations In a multi-MPO partnership, the support of various groups, including nonprofit organizations, can help maintain work- ing relationships and keep agencies focused on regional issues. For the SJV Blueprint Process, supportive agencies include the following: • The Great Valley Center (GVC), a nonprofit community development organization, is the regional facilitator for the Blueprint Process. The GVC also is the headquarters for the California Partnership. • The Blueprint Regional Advisory Committee supports the entire effort, acting as champion of the final Blueprint vision, advocating implementation with local jurisdictions, and promoting regional strategies at state and federal levels. • The SJV Blueprint Professional Planners Group consists of land use planners from each county who provided a frame- work to develop the guiding principles for community outreach and scenario planning. • A partnership called the Blueprint Learning Network helps coordinate shared data and learning experiences about the megaregional planning effort. • The San Joaquin Valley Regional Policy Council, consist- ing of two elected officials from each MPO, made the final Blueprint scenario recommendation. The Central Florida MPO Alliance was formed in 1997 by METROPLAN ORLANDO and the Volusia County MPO with a collaborative focus on regional transportation issues. The alliance con- sists of six MPOs and two Florida DOT Districts, governed by a joint resolution of the participat- ing member MPOs and the Florida DOT. The alliance developed a Central Florida Long-Range Transportation Plan that unifies regional goals and coordinates individual MPO plans. The plan synthesizes existing MPO plans, rather than devel- oping a separate regional vision. Under a new Florida DOT program, the alliance (and other regions with interlocal agreements between MPOs) is eligible to receive state funding (up to a 50% share) for facilities that serve regional, state, or national functions. (www.metroplan orlando.com/siste/parterships/cfmpo.asp) Define Performance Measurement Framework Interregional Adoption of Common Goals, Objectives, and Vision The megaregional scenario addresses the challenges of growth while recognizing the limitations existing agencies face in tackling problems that stretch beyond their borders. Addressing growth across MPO boundaries requires an under- standing of how a megaregion is growing and changing and a common set of goals or a vision for addressing this growth. The SJV Blueprint Process integrates transportation, hous- ing, land use, economic development, and environmental data to produce growth scenarios for 2050. The starting point for the Blueprint Process was a “status quo” scenario projection of how all eight counties would grow based on current trends. Alternative scenarios were developed based on land use, transportation, conservation, and housing plans. These sce- narios addressed questions such as • How and where should we grow? • How will we travel around the region? • How will growth affect our environment and our overall quality of life?6http://www.fresnocog.org/files/Blueprint%20Summary%20-%20Brochure.pdf

26 These scenarios were used to produce a regional vision, goals, and objectives. The final Blueprint product will include growth strategies for each county and the entire Valley. The COGs in the Blueprint initiative plan to track progress toward valleywide goals and make any “midcourse corrections” nec- essary to stay on track. communities in a visioning process that was incorporated into a valleywide vision. Engaging the public at this level is an enormous undertaking, but the bottom-up approach encourages local decisionmakers to embrace and promote the regional vision. Maintaining this bottom-up approach of the Blueprint Pro- cess presents challenges, especially for local decision-making authority. Though local jurisdictions are often wary of regional plans that may impact local decision making, the bottom-up approach has facilitated a collaborative process. As the Blue- print Process is implemented, changes to the strategies and decisions from the Blueprint planning process could lead local jurisdictions to view the plan as top-down. Outcomes of the regional Blueprint Process and the California Partnership cannot supersede local land use authority. Developing Measurement and Data Collection Methodologies Adopt a Base Set of Metrics, but Allow for Flexibility Where multiple agencies are involved, it can be challenging to have the appropriate data and tools available to evaluate the performance measure framework across agency boundaries. For the SJV Blueprint Process, a common set of measures was reviewed and adopted by each COG, allowing for flexibility to use additional measures based on each COG’s unique planning needs and county goals. Table 6.1 lists the common set of measures used by all eight COGs. All performance measures used by counties during the Blueprint Process were selected based on data availability and forecasting capabilities. Additional measures would strain the modeling capacity of some of the COGs. Intra- county differences also make applying a single set of measures impractical. Ensure Appropriate Technical Support Megaregional network performance analysis benefits from partners with significant technical analysis and modeling expertise. For the SJV Blueprint Process, the COGs worked with the University of California at Davis (UC Davis) to model land use scenarios and generate performance measures. The counties built on regional model coordination for pre- vious air quality planning efforts to develop the necessary data sharing and modeling techniques for analysis of the mega- region. Part of the Blueprint Process funding was used for geo- graphic information systems (GIS), land use modeling, and visualization technology to forecast urbanization in 2050. The land use model, UPlan, developed by UC Davis, provided tech- nical and data support to the COGs and local governments. The Central Florida MPO Alliance worked with myregion.org, a Central Florida nonprofit, to create a regional vision through studies and outreach efforts, including the How Shall We Grow? Regional Vision Project. Myregion.org is developing a position paper to identify what Central Florida must do to build a world-class multimodal transportation system. The top issues include a regional funding mechanism; education of the community and stakeholders, and the need for an integrated regional vision incorporating all modes of transportation. (www.myregion.org/Home/tabid/36/Default.aspx) Allow for Flexibility and Bottom-Up Planning Though a common vision is important to megaregional network performance, it is equally necessary to avoid apply- ing measures or strategies using a top-down approach. At this level of application, a network performance approach must provide flexibility to the various agencies involved, or they are unlikely to participate. For the SJV Blueprint Process, each of the counties devel- oped its own goals and strategies, though there are significant overlaps. For example, • Merced County’s strategies include an intermodal trans- portation system, light-rail transit, and high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes; • Kern County examined multiple scenarios, including (1) a “Major Change” scenario focused on mixed development, walkable centers, and transit and (2) a “Moderate Change” scenario focused on transportation choices and cost-effective use of infrastructure; and • Fresno County’s strategies include connecting centers, con- gestion relief, transportation choices for people and goods, and access to key economic assets. In addition, the Blueprint Process included public meetings and scenario planning sessions that involved a broad array of stakeholders. With the help of GVC, each COG engaged local

Table 6.1. San Joaquin Valley Blueprint measures. Category and Measures Tool(s) Transportation Measures Person - hours and vehicle - hours of travel (per day) Traffic model and m ode split model Person - hours and vehicle - hours of delay (per day) Traffic model and mode split model Reliability of travel times Traffic model Mass Transit Mode split Mode split model Proportion of transit usage Mode split model Transit sui tability GIS Air Quality Reduction of emissions Traffic model, EMFAC (or other) Reduction in VMT per household Traffic model Reduction in truck - related emissions* Mode choice Housing/Jobs/Balance Change in jobs/housing ratio UPlan or other Community balance GIS Agriculture Land Conservation Reduction in land conversion GIS, UPlan Environmental Conservation Reduction of impacts to environmental resources GIS, UPlan Source: http://www.sjvalleyblueprint.com/process.htm * Cannot currently be estimated. EMFAC = EMission FACtors model; GIS = geographic information system. California’s Bay Area and Sacramento are work- ing together in an interregional planning context to use funding to address freight movements. The regions are beginning to work together to coordinate land use and transportation models to help evaluate multiregional issues. The West Central Florida Chairs Coordinating Committee includes six MPOs, two Florida DOT Districts, and several Regional Planning Councils. The committee meets quarterly to provide a consistent approach to long-range planning, congestion management, land use planning, public involvement, air quality management, and regional modeling. The committee supports a regional travel demand model developed by member agencies and a regional GIS for sharing transportation information across agencies. (www.regionaltransportation.org) 27

Next: Chapter 7 - Intra-Agency Scenario Linking Planning and Operations at a State DOT »
Measuring Transportation Network Performance Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 664: Measuring Transportation Network Performance explores ways to monitor transportation network performance by developing new or integrating existing performance measures from different transportation modes and multiple jurisdictions.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!