Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 60
60
CHAPTER 6
The Institutional Landscape for Multimodal
Corridors in the United States
This chapter addresses the roles of institutional stakeholders Multimodal Institutional Settings
typically involved in multimodal corridor development projects
Many barriers to building new paradigm corridors are
and the relationships among them that are needed for the
institutional. The U.S. interstate freeway system was largely
projects to be successful. Corridor responsibilities are often
built by single-purpose state highway departments. Many of
divided among a host of different agencies. Local governments
our post-World War II transit systems were built by agencies
typically have responsibility for land use; state highway depart-
created solely for the purpose of building and operating them.
ments design, build, and operate freeways; transit agencies plan,
This single-purpose agency model is well-suited to building
build, and operate transit services; and federal transportation
unimodal transportation systems, but presents obstacles to
agencies provide funding and oversight.
planning, building, and operating new paradigm multimodal
Multimodal corridors require close collaboration among
corridors.
these and other institutions that may not typically work
The transportation system is multimodal by nature. Each
together. This chapter discusses the institutional histories and agency type--transit, state DOT, local governments, MPOs--
perspectives of these stakeholders and how these narratives can and often do coordinate multimodal transportation
inform their roles and responsibilities when collaborating on services out of necessity. But new paradigm multimodal
new paradigm projects. Although the history of multimodal corridors derive their benefits from planned and coordinated
corridors and the various stakeholders involved in these past multimodal systems, not from multimodalism as an after-
projects is briefly discussed in Chapter 2, this chapter focuses thought. Building a new paradigm multimodal corridor
on the important historical developments of key new paradigm requires highway and transit agencies (among others) to
agencies and the potential for developing new institutional coordinate and collaborate on a day-to-day basis throughout
relationships among them. all phases of project planning, design, construction, and
operations. The institutional gaps between these agencies
can create barriers that must be overcome to plan and develop
New Institutional Relationships a multimodal corridor. New paradigm projects require con-
New institutional relationships are often needed to capture scious, determined, and continuous efforts on the part of all
the benefits of new paradigm corridors. Multimodal systems stakeholders to identify, understand, and overcome these
require cooperation and collaboration among different levels of institutional gaps.
government (that is, federal, state, regional and local), differ-
ent agencies with mode-specific missions (for example, state
Bridging the Multimodal "Gaps"
highway departments, transit agencies, and city streets and
Between Unimodal Agencies
roads departments), and different public agencies with diver-
gent missions (for example, city land use planning departments The landscape of agencies and stakeholders involved in
and transit agencies). Inter-agency agreements and new legis- multimodal corridor projects includes many agencies organized
lation may be needed to allow new uses of rights-of-way, new to fulfill a single, and often unimodal, purpose. Over time, these
types of partnerships, and new approaches to facility opera- agencies have changed and new ones have been formed to
tions and management. address multimodal challenges. One of the most important
OCR for page 61
61
challenges is that multimodal projects must comply with all of their capacities to influence and coordinate among their
the local, regional, state, and federal regulations governing regional partners.
highways and the rules from the same that apply to transit.
Understanding how to bridge these gaps and create success- Multiagency Partnerships: The Key to Building
ful new paradigm multimodal corridor projects requires an Successful New Paradigm Corridors
understanding of how these agencies were formed and how
they have changed. The benefits of developing a new paradigm corridor are
State DOTs provide perhaps the best example of agencies best ensured using multiagency partnerships, founded on the
that started as unimodal, highway construction organizations, principles of shared responsibility and authority. The successes
that have evolved over the years to become more multimodal of Denver's T-REX project, for example, are largely owed to
and more collaborative. Many state DOTs were shaped by the the collaborative partnerships forged between numerous
objective of building the interstate system--using uniform agencies in the project's corridor. Sometimes, however, large
standards established at the national level--and they did this collaborative teams can lead to suboptimal outcomes. In these
well. These DOTs were not accustomed to planning and cases (and in the case of the T-REX project) more advanced
forms of cooperation can lead to successful new paradigm
operating facilities for other modes such as transit, paratransit,
projects.3 Partnerships can take many forms, but new para-
bicycling, or walking--those not explicitly incorporated into
digm partnerships require a level of collaboration beyond those
the original interstate highway system.1
typically mandated by federal requirements for interagency
Similarly, transit agencies are important in multimodal
coordination and consultation. Healey describes emerging
corridor projects, but they generally focus on operating and
approaches to government partnerships, which take two forms:
maintaining their existing services. As a result, when calls are
made for transit agencies to expand and include planning for · Consensus-building: working with key stakeholders to reach
transit-oriented development and pedestrian and bike ac- agreement and adoption of a common strategic policy
cess to their systems, agencies often think that this will be agenda.3 When developing new paradigm multimodal cor-
more than they can handle.2 As a result, transit and highway ridors, this is a critical first step in any partnership because
agencies in particular can appear to serve distinctly different coordination among modes in a corridor will yield perfor-
constituencies, and the skill sets valued in one agency are not mance benefits when all partners agree on the goals, objec-
always transferable to the other. This can hinder effective co- tives, and actions that will be shared by all partners.
ordination on multimodal projects. · Collaboration: a form of consensus-building with a strong
Other agencies have evolved to bridge the gaps between emphasis on including all stakeholders and establishing the
unimodal transit and state DOTs and provide multimodal institutional mechanisms that will formalize and ensure the
coordination. Some local governments and their transportation rights, responsibilities, and opportunities of all to participate
departments offer a multimodal focus, if at a smaller geo- in the decision-making process.3
graphical scale. Local governments also control land uses, a
critical component necessary to build new paradigm corridors. New paradigm facilities are complex systems requiring
However, local governments typically do not control the key collaboration among many stakeholders to share power,
facilities of a multimodal corridor--the transit and freeway authority, and expertise.
systems.
To effectively coordinate modes within a larger, regional Sharing Power, Authority, and Expertise
context, MPOs were created by federal mandate and given
substantial powers to influence transportation finance, policy, Partnerships work best when the lead agency (that is, the
and planning decisions within their jurisdictions. Nevertheless, agency with the most responsibility and authority) yields
MPOs are not typically charged with project construction or some degree of control over the decision-making process
operational duties, so their effectiveness is largely a function to the partnership. In exchange, the partnership gains the
expertise and political support of the other members and will
be capable of building and operating a multimodal corridor
1Deakin, E., "The Social Impacts of the Interstate System: What are the
Repercussions?," TR News, May-June 2006, 244, p. 16.
2Deakin, E., G. Tal & K. Frick, "What Makes Public Transit a Success? Perspectives 3Goldman, T. & E. Deakin, "Regionalism Through Partnerships? Metropolitan
on Ridership in an Era of Uncertain Revenues and Climate Change," Presented Planning Since ISTEA," Berkeley Planning Journal 14 (2000): 4675, http://
at the Transportation Research Board's 89th Annual Meeting, 2010. www.ced.berkeley.edu/pubs/bpj/pdf/bidl1405.pdf
OCR for page 62
62
that performs beyond what would be possible if the most multimodal approach to national transportation planning
powerful agency in the partnership worked alone.3 and financing.
Such a high level of collaboration puts different strains and The creation of UMTA in 1964 was driven both by the rise of
pressures on each partner agency. The organizational and in- the environmental and antifreeway movements (see Chapter 2),
stitutional history, culture, and legal mandates of each agency and a recognition in Congress that the nation's transit system
present different challenges to fully participating in the collab- was in decline and needed financial support similar to that
orative process. The discussion that follows addresses these dif- given highways with the interstate program. Transit's decline
ferent contexts as determined by the type of governmental and the consequent need for a more multimodal USDOT
agency involved. These include the organizational contexts of became widely apparent after the passage of the Transportation
the federal Department of Transportation (USDOT), the state Act of 1958.
DOTs, transit agencies, and regional and local governments. Prior to 1958, state governments were able to slow the decline
of the nation's passenger rail transit services by reviewing and
declining petitions to abandon existing lines from railroad
The USDOT Context operators. The Transportation Act of 1958 moved control of
USDOT was originally established to fund and facilitate this petition process from state governments--which generally
highway construction--a focus that has proven effective at favored maintaining passenger rail services--to the federal
building the nation's interstate system, but has sometimes been interstate commerce commission--which was given the man-
an impediment to building effective multimodal corridors. date to "balance" the interests of passenger services with
In recent years the USDOT has evolved from being an agency railroad profitability.4 This resulted in the immediate closing
focused exclusively on highway construction into an increas- of several important commuter rail services and a public
ingly effective partner in facilitating multimodal corridors. backlash that prompted key members of Congress to advocate
for the establishment of a federal transit agency, originally
USDOT strengths as a new paradigm project partner include
known as UMTA.5
· Working relationships with federal legislators and other
The largely grassroots antifreeway and environmental
movements of the 1960s and 1970s also played an important
policymakers who can help build political and financial
role in the creation of UMTA. By the late 1960s, rising con-
support for a new paradigm project
cerns about the effects of automobiles on the environment
· Experience working with transportation planning, engi-
raised further questions about highway building and led to
neering, and construction firms
requirements for environmental reviews (NEPA, 1969). Argu-
· Active collaborations with state DOTs and transit agencies
ments in favor of federal support for transit found traction in
· An ability to set standards of practice in transportation
the John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson administrations,
planning, engineering and financing practices that could
and the UMTA Act of 1964 created the possibility of a different
benefit new paradigm projects
image of the modern city, one with transit as a key travel mode.
· An increasingly multimodal perspective, the result of a
Once established, UMTA (later renamed, the Federal Tran-
number of reforms both from within and outside of the
sit Administration) became important in financing and advo-
federal government.
cating for multimodal corridor projects, but it was the passage
of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act in
This historical evolution from a highway-focused to a multi- 1991 that brought the practice of multimodalism to nearly
modal agency make today's USDOT a powerful advocate for every part of USDOT and its partner agencies across the United
and partner in building new paradigm corridors. These changes States. This multimodal perspective and its proliferation have
were marked by several watershed multimodal transformations, made successful new paradigm project collaborations possible.
including the establishment of UMTA, the passage of ISTEA,
and the changes under way in response to the increasing
scarcity of federal transportation funds. ISTEA and the Multimodal Transformation of USDOT
The passage of ISTEA in 1991 brought a fundamental shift
The Establishment of the Urban Mass in USDOT's primary functions as a transportation policy
Transit Administration (UMTA) and financing organization and dramatically improved the
opportunities for multiagency collaboration and funding
After passage of the 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act, USDOT opportunities for new paradigm corridors. Prior to ISTEA, it
engaged the states as partners in building the interstate highway was difficult to fund multimodal corridor projects since federal
system. In the 1950s and 60s, even as the intestate highway
system began to yield tangible successes, a confluence of social 4
http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/resources/more/railroad_history/
movements and political shifts led USDOT to take a more 5
http://www.fta.dot.gov/about/about_FTA_history.html
OCR for page 63
63
funds were limited to mode-specific uses and largely funding the country received 62 percent of New Starts funding.8 FTA's
highway construction. Since ISTEA, federal funds are increas- New Start's evaluation criteria ranks projects highly that can
ingly used for non-highway projects with greater opportunities show dense, transit-oriented land uses in the proposed corridor
for multimodal corridor projects. ISTEA also enhanced the of operations.9
role of intermodal regional governments (MPOs) in deciding As a result, transit-oriented new paradigm multimodal
which projects would receive federal funding. corridor projects may fare better in competing against park-
Nevertheless, significant barriers to federal transit project and-ride-oriented multimodal corridor projects that might
funding--and multimodal corridor project funding--remain. have benefited from pre-New Starts funding priorities in the
Thus far, requests for New Starts funds (the federal govern- past. However, new paradigm projects are also faced with the
ment's fixed-guideway transit project financing program) have increasing scarcity of federal transportation funds.
exceeded supply, and although FTA is authorized to fund up
to 80 percent of the capital costs of a transit project, most
projects receive less than half. This is compared to the Highway The Era of Underinvestment--
Trust Fund, which has traditionally provided 90 percent of Federal Transportation Funding Scarcity
construction costs for the interstate system6 (although this In the current era of federal budget deficits, USDOT and
percentage has dropped in more recent years). Congress have struggled to maintain adequate funding levels for
transportation. The National Surface Transportation Policy
and Revenue Study Commission concluded in their 2008 report
Federal Transportation Project Funding: that transportation investment needs require $225 billion
Advantages and Disadvantages per year. Meanwhile, we are currently only spending roughly
for New Paradigm Projects 40 percent of this amount.10 Foremost among these challenges
Institutional impediments to new paradigm projects within is the declining revenues from fixed-price gasoline taxes due
USDOT remain, even as multimodalism has become more im- to inflation.
portant. For example, the New Starts program's transit project Even so, since this scarcity of transportation funds is a
funding evaluation process tends to have a higher level of challenge that all projects and modes face, the multimodal
scrutiny and accountability than highway projects, adding im- nature of new paradigm projects may help make them more
pediments to transit project funding and making new paradigm competitive for federal funds in the future since they offer the
corridor funding more complex as a result. The current process potential for cost-savings, multimodal coordination, reduced
only approves funding projects in the final design phase, neces- environmental impacts, and greater person-carrying capacities
sitating a substantial local investment before funding from the than competing unimodal projects.
federal government can be secured and adding an additional Working to fill the gap, local governments are increasingly
hurdle to transit projects compared to highway projects.7 levying sales taxes to fund transportation projects. In terms
of planning practice, this has led to the devolution of trans-
These federal funding issues have tended to favor park-
portation policy and fiscal responsibilities from the federal
and-ride access, automobile-oriented multimodal corridor
and state levels to the local level, with transportation invest-
projects in the past. However, more recent federal funding
ment decisions often being made within the local legislative
trends suggest that transit-oriented new paradigm projects
and political arenas.11 Therefore, it is possible that the success
could have a better chance at attracting financing in the future.
of new paradigm projects in the future will depend somewhat
less on federal USDOT financing and policies and more on
A Trend To Favoring Transit-Oriented state, local, and regional decisions.
New Paradigm Projects?
8Emerson, D. J., "FTA New Starts: The ISTEA and TEA-21 Funding Commit-
It seems reasonable to speculate that recent trends in federal
ments," March 29, 2002, http://www.pbworld.com/news_events/publications/
transit funding may tend to favor more transit-oriented technical_papers/pdf/44_FTA_New_Starts.pdf
new paradigm projects in dense, transit-friendly urban areas. 9Deakin, E., C. Ferrell, J. Thomas, J. Mason. "Policies And Practices for Cost-
During the past decade, the 10 largest metropolitan areas in Effective Transit Investments: Recent Experiences in the United States"
Transportation Research Record 1799, 2002, pp. 19.
10Miller, D. L., "Testimony on the Financing of Future Investments in Highway and
6Gifford, J., "The Exceptional Interstate Highway System: Will a Compelling Mass Transit," Before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives,
New Vision Emerge?," TR News, MayJune 2006, 244, p. 10. Tuesday, March 17, 2009, http://budget.house.gov/hearings/2009/03.17.2009_
7Emerson, D. J. & J. D. Ensor, New Starts: Lessons Learned for Discretionary Miller_Testimony.pdf
Federal Transportation Funding Programs, Bipartisan Policy Center, January 25, 11Wachs, M. & T. Goldman, "A Quiet Revolution in Transportation Finance: The
2010, http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/library/report/new-starts-lessons-learned- Rise of Local Option Transportation Taxes," Transportation Quarterly, 57, 1,
discretionary-federal-transportation-funding-programs Winter 2003, pp. 1932.
OCR for page 64
64
The State DOT Context While the freeway revolts challenged the existing, highway-
centric transportation planning, financing, and operational
State DOTs in the United States were originally established
emphasis in the United States, they also served to broaden the
in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as highway depart-
constituencies that set transportation priorities, introducing
ments. After World War II and the passage of the Federal-Aid
new and more multimodal perspectives. Although some state
Highway Act of 1956, state highway departments grew con-
DOTs resisted these pressures, others experimented with more
siderably as they took the lead role in planning, designing,
collaborative methods of decision making. These DOTs led
building, and operating the interstate highway system. State
the way in transforming their institutional structures and
DOT strengths as new paradigm project partners include
developing a more multimodal perspective--a trend that
made multimodal corridors an attractive option for many
· Real-world expertise at planning, designing, building, and
state DOTs.
operating highway facilities and networks During this period of transition for state DOTs in the
· A close working relationship with USDOT, an important
1970s, the Oregon Department of Transportation's (ODOT's)
source of new paradigm project funding role in the development of Portland's MAX Blue/Red Line/
· Relationships with highway planning, engineering, and
I-84 multimodal corridor project (then called the Banfield
construction firms Corridor) is emblematic of the changes in state DOTs and
· Relationships with local governments, since state DOT
their approaches to transportation planning. While originally
highways often serve as primary travel arteries through and ODOT seemed to favor a highway-only capacity expansion
between cities and counties where new paradigm projects for the corridor, the agency signaled a shift when, for the first
might be built time in its history, it appointed a citizens' advisory commit-
· Access to alternate funding sources such as state trans-
tee for a regional transportation project--the Banfield Corri-
portation funds and county and city sales taxes that are dor Study. This study recommended the construction of the
playing an ever-increasing role in meeting the shortfall in light rail line using the funds and right-of-way originally
available federal funds earmarked for the freeway expansion--arguably, one of the
· An increasingly multimodal perspective, the result of a
first successful cases of using federal highway funds for multi-
number of reform movements both from within and outside modal corridor project construction. The most important
of state DOTs. lesson learned from ODOT's experience is the need for state
DOTs to incorporate the public into their decision-making
The trend toward a more multimodal orientation has made processes. In doing so, ODOT helped change the trajectory
state DOTs an important partner in new paradigm project of the Banfield Corridor, placing their agency in the role of
collaborations. accommodating the desires of the public for a truly multi-
modal corridor.
Multimodal Reform of State DOTs ODOT's evolution reflects the changes taking place simul-
taneously at state DOTs around the country as organizations
The so-called "freeway revolts" also had a profound influ-
redefined themselves as multimodal agencies responsive to
ence on the organizational structures of state DOTs. Many
societal pressures that favored multimodal transportation.
states added transit offices or divisions to their agencies and
Furthermore, this transformation is an example of how insti-
by the late 1960s and early 1970s, many had been renamed as
tutional reform can make new paradigm multimodal corridor
departments of transportation (DOTs).
projects possible.
For example, in California, the passage of Assembly Bill (AB)
69 in 1972 directed regional transportation planning agencies
to develop their own multimodal transportation plans and ISTEA and the Multimodal Transformation
the state's highway department to combine them into a single, of State DOTs
statewide multimodal transportation plan.12 This was followed Since state DOTs are often the owner-operators of freeway
a year later by changing the state DOT's name from the Divi- facilities, the successful development of a new paradigm multi-
sion of Highways to the California Department of Transporta- modal corridor often depends on their ability to function as
tion (Caltrans, for short). In the late 1970s, the state removed multimodal agencies. This means they must be able to
several major freeway construction elements of its statewide
transportation plan, sending the message that the freeway- · Plan, build and manage freeways that accommodate transit
building era had come to a close.12 and other modes
· Work collaboratively with other agencies and stakeholders
12
Brown, J., "Statewide Transportation Planning: Lessons from California," · Take advantage of flexible highway funds (ISTEA), using
Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 56, No. 2, Spring 2002, pp. 5156. them for non-highway corridor improvements.
OCR for page 65
65
In practice, ISTEA has been somewhat inconsistent in conflicts, rural rail-highway conflicts, and intercity bus and
influencing the multimodal transformation of state DOTs. rail terminal joint location. When asked what aspects of their
When first passed, ISTEA required state DOTs to implement transportation systems they modeled, they indicated that
management systems and long-range plans. Unfortunately, traffic models of state highway operations were twice as com-
these requirements were later relaxed and made optional. mon as were any other infrastructure needs. In general, state
In a study by Lipsman and Walter of state DOTs in 1998-- DOT respondents indicated that their multimodal analytic
after ISTEA had been in effect for 7 years--many surveyed skills needed upgrading to meet the multimodal expectations
DOTs gave a relatively low level of attention to intermodal of ISTEA.13
transportation.13 Whether multimodal corridor projects are seen as a help or
A 2007 study of seven state DOTs suggests these challenges a hindrance to achieving this goal often depends on the degree
persist, with respondent agencies reporting low levels of state to which state DOTs have successfully transitioned from a
funding for intermodal projects, investments in transit services, highway-oriented to a multimodal agency in line with the
investments in bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and invest- intent of ISTEA.
ments in intermodal connecting facilities.14 Colorado's Transportation Expansion (T-REX) project
Even within state DOTs, there are considerable differ- offers important insights into the perspectives of state DOTs
ences among departments and disciplines in embracing the involved in multimodal corridor projects. While a partner-
multimodal implications of ISTEA. Although many have ship consisting of the Colorado Department of Transportation
transformed their planning processes to a more multimodal (CDOT), Denver's MPO (DRCOG), the Regional Denver's
approach, significant portions of these same agencies con- Regional Transit District, and numerous local governments
tinue to see themselves as highway-building and maintenance within the corridor commissioned the Major Investment Study
organizations.14 in 1995, CDOT and FHWA were concerned that the recom-
In practice, many institutional and political barriers re-
mendations were too transit-oriented and contained only
mained in the years after ISTEA's passage that prevented truly
minor freeway capacity improvements. At this point, the part-
multimodal planning to flourish in many states, and as a
nership took a step back, reassessed their priorities, and decided
consequence, pose a significant barrier to successful new
to focus on improvements that would enhance mobility for
paradigm projects as well. Despite the good intentions behind
all modes of travel in the corridor, not just transit. As a result,
ISTEA's flexible funding mandate, only a few states and their
they eventually identified a combination of freeway widening
MPO partners have diverted funds from highways to other
and light rail improvements that would satisfy CDOT, FHWA,
modes. Between 1992 and 1999, of the $33.8 billion in flexible
and the transit interests in the partnership.12
funds available, only $4.2 billion or 12.5 percent was actually
With this balance of multimodal improvements, the
transferred from highways to transit, and of this amount, the
stakeholders were able to support the proposed alternative.
District of Columbia, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, and
California--all highly urbanized areas--accounted for one- Equally important, this cross-agency collaborative structure and
third of these transfers. Metropolitan areas with the largest the widely supported multimodal package of improvements
and most well-established transit agencies were the most likely that resulted yielded additional benefits later. In 1999 when
to transfer funds from highway to transit projects.15 the project's federal funds were as yet unavailable, the voters
Reasons for the underuse of flexible funding vary, but an passed Referendum A, allowing CDOT to borrow money
important one has been a continued emphasis within state for construction against those unallocated federal funds--
DOTs on what they saw as their mission to complete the a testament to the strength of the multiagency partnership
Interstate Freeway System.16 Lipsman and Walter's (1998) that was able to rally public voter support to keep the project
survey of state DOTs found they were struggling to incorporate on track.12
multimodalism into their business models. When asked to
rank the importance of eleven multimodal issues, the top The Way Forward for State DOTs:
three identified were highway-focused: urban rail-highway Promoting the Promise of Multimodal Planning
13Lipsman, M. & C. W. Walter, "Response of State Transportation Planning Several states have taken the lead in transforming their DOTs
Programs to the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991," from highway departments into multimodal organizations.
Crossroads 2000 Proceedings, Ames: Iowa State University, August 20, 1998, Colorado provides an important example of how the collab-
pp. 167171. http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/pubs/crossroads/167response.pdf
14Goetz, A. R., et al., "Assessing Intermodal Transportation Planning at State oration required for multimodal projects led to a transforma-
Departments of Transportation," World Review of Intermodal Transportation tion of the agency. With the growing strength of the state's
Research 2007; Vol. 1, No. 2 pp. 119145. MPOs after the passage of ISTEA, CDOT found it was necessary
15Puentes, P., "Flexible Funding for Transit: Who Uses It?," Center on Urban &
Metropolitan Policy, The Brookings Institution, May 2000. to collaborate with MPOs and a wide variety of other stake-
16http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c102:2:./temp/c102DxKBg6:e1910:
holders in order to achieve these aims.
OCR for page 66
66
In the last decade, this transformation has been reflected in of multimodal planning at state DOTs reveals that many agen-
CDOT's organizational structures. In 2004, CDOT created cies have made significant strides in this arena in recent years,
several new divisions that would place more emphasis on incorporating multimodal planning techniques into their
multimodal planning, public transit, and collaborative plan- long- and short-range plans. Colorado, Florida, Arizona, and
ning techniques. CDOT's Division of Transportation Develop- Louisiana were recently cited by an FHWA study as success-
ment has grown substantially and now houses an intermodal fully incorporating multimodal elements into their long-
planning branch to address transit, bicycle, and pedestrian range plans.14 However, many of the respondents expressed
modes, as well as transportation demand management (TDM). concern about the continued highway orientation of many
This widened perspective includes a greater emphasis on freight state DOTs, a lack of funding for multimodal projects in
planning within this multimodal planning unit.14 These changes general, and too little investment in or attention to transit,
have also taken root in CDOT's approach to planning activities. bicycle, and pedestrian facilities and the intermodal connec-
Multimodal and collaborative processes used to create elements tors needed to integrate these modes.14
of CDOT's recent long-range plan were cited by an FHWA
study as representative of best practices.14
California's DOT (Caltrans) responded to calls from the The Transit Agency Context
electorate for more multimodal planning and operations by
Like state DOTs, transit agencies tend to have specific and
setting up the Corridor System Management Plan (CSMP)
focused missions--in this case, the planning, designing, con-
process. CSMPs are designed to evaluate how a travel corridor
structing, and operating of a transit system. This focus may
is performing, determine why it is performing that way, and
tend to engender a view within transit agencies of freeways
identify system management strategies to improve the cor-
and the state DOTs that operate them as competitors. Even
ridor's performance.
so, transit agencies often operate in freeway corridors and
There are two key elements to the CSMPs that break new
on freeways themselves. As a result, efforts to enhance transit
ground for Caltrans. First, the analytic process is focused on
services in freeway corridors through cross-agency partnerships
corridor mobility, rather than simply on the performance of
can find willing and enthusiastic partners in transit agencies.
a state highway, allowing consideration of a broad range of
Efforts to build a multimodal corridor require active transit
modes and facilities. Second, the CSMP process embraces
agency involvement. Whether this is obtained through part-
collaboration with MPOs and other local government stake-
holders as the key to successful transportation system man- nering with an existing transit agency or by the creation of a
agement, planning, and project delivery. In the San Francisco project-specific one is a question that should be addressed at the
Bay Area, Caltrans District 4 has developed a collaborative earliest point possible in the conceptualization of the project.
process for CSMPs with the region's MPO. As a result, CSMPs Once the transit agency partner is identified and engaged
produced in the Bay Area are increasingly addressing multi- in the project planning process, it is often found that they bring
modal issues and present an opportunity to develop new real strengths to the partnership. Transit agency strengths
paradigm corridor projects as well. include:
Many other states have taken similar steps to organize
their operations around multimodalism. Florida DOT has a · Real-world expertise at planning, designing, building, and
Public Transportation Administrator that is responsible for operating transit infrastructure.
coordinating department involvement in intermodal trans- · A direct business relationship with existing transit riders
portation issues. Louisiana DOT has established an Office of and an understanding of the transit ridership market.
Public Works and Intermodal Transportation that includes These contacts can be particularly useful when advocating
Aviation, Public Transportation, and Marine & Rail Transpor- for project financing and building political support for the
tation sections. Mississippi DOT has an Office of Intermodal proposed multimodal corridor project. Transit agencies
Planning that houses their Aeronautics, Planning, Public often have working relationships and familiarity with local
Transit, Rails, and Ports & Waterways divisions. Texas DOT transit advocates as well, offering an additional source of
has established a Multimodal Planning team that provides support for the proposed multimodal corridor project.
technical expertise for the development of their statewide · Relationships with transit planning, engineering, and
intermodal plan.14 construction firms. These contacts are particularly useful
Nevertheless, creating a DOT department tasked with when preliminary cost estimates of project alternatives are
multimodal planning or being a liaison to public transit agen- needed as well as judgments regarding the feasibility of
cies and MPOs is a far cry from changing state DOT culture these alternatives.
and approach to highway planning, design, and operations, · Relationships with local elected officials. Transit agency
let alone getting a new paradigm project built. A recent study governing boards are often populated with local politicians
OCR for page 67
67
who have contacts either with local government com-
missions and boards or with representatives of these local
government-elected officials themselves.
Many transit agencies use these advantages within collabora-
tive transportation planning efforts to great effect. In particular,
transit agencies advocate for multimodal solutions to trans-
portation problems and as new paradigm project partners
with access to various federal, state, and local project funding
sources.
Transit Agencies as Agents
of Multimodal Compromise
In the case of the T-REX multimodal corridor project
(see Figure 6-1), Denver's Regional Transit District (RTD)
played a critical role in helping forge a compromise between
the highway and transit interests in the corridor during the
project planning process. Perhaps due in part to the wide
variety of interests involved in the study, the initial Major
Investment Study (MIS) was largely transit-oriented in its
recommendations with relatively minor freeway improve-
ments. However, FHWA and CDOT advocated for freeway-
widening measures and after discussion, the lead agencies
Source: Colorado Department of Transportation, T-REX Fact Book.
agreed that the MIS placed too much emphasis on transit.
The RTD's director reported, "We looked at ways to break Figure 6-1. Denver's T-REX Project.
down the freeway versus transit rivalry and started looking at
mobility," and started to, ". . . look at freeway and transit as
coordinated pieces of a comprehensive strategy to maximize
mobility in a project with limited available right of way. We a critical role in obtaining funds for new paradigm multimodal
set our sights on a project that was a win-win [proposition] projects.18
for both transit and freeway. What emerged was the T-REX The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
project."17 (TEA-21), the successor to ISTEA, also brought changes to
These efforts to bridge the gap between freeway and transit the relationship between transit agencies and the federal
interests also yielded a revised Major Investment Study for the government. The most prominent change was the elimination
corridor that combined freeway widening (with up to seven of federal operating assistance to transit agencies in urban
lanes in each direction) with fixed-rail transit improvements-- areas of more than 200,000. Operating expenses--including
a mix that all the project partners could support. employee wages and benefits, vehicle maintenance, fuel
expenses--typically account for more than two-thirds of a
transit agency's annual expenses.
Transit Agencies as New Paradigm Project Since the federal government had been trying to reduce
Funding Champions its commitments to funding transit operating expenses for
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation years,19 transit agencies were able to fill this funding gap with
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) increased local revenue sources. Over the past two decades, transit
transit capital funding to $52.6 billion over six years, an agencies have adjusted to the reality of reduced funding
increase of 46 percent over TEA-21 levels. These increases in
available transit capital funds suggest transit agencies can play
18Millar, W. W., "Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act--A Legacy for Users: A Guide to Transit-Related Provisions," http://www.
publictransportation.org/resources/laws/safetea_lu_brochure.asp#link2
17
Civil Engineering News- Spotlight on Building The Future-T-REX project, 19Brown, J. "Paying for Transit in an Era of Federal Policy Change," Journal of
http://www.cenews.com/article.asp?id=1314 Public Transportation, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2005.
OCR for page 68
68
support from federal and state sources with funds from local MPO's plans and funding decisions are only a component
sales taxes, gas taxes, and local government general revenue of their state's transportation improvement plan (STIP), but
sources. Nationally, from 1984 to 2001, the average share of the MPO's portion of the STIP must have the approval of
transit agency operating expenses that came from local dedi- the MPO to have official recognition from the federal govern-
cated sales taxes grew from 11.8 to 19.6 percent,19 a 66 percent ment. Therefore, to be effective new paradigm partners,
increase. This agility at accessing funds speaks to the substantial MPOs are at their best when working as consensus-builders.
political influence transit agencies can draw on within their As a result, the state retains the official power over federal
operating jurisdictions and makes them potentially powerful transportation funding allocations, but the MPOs can ob-
partners in new paradigm projects. struct the state's power, forcing them to submit an incom-
plete STIP for approval to the federal government.20
This role as potential spoiler is just one example of the
The MPO Context
double-edged nature of MPO powers. MPOs must navigate
MPOs can play important roles in new paradigm projects the political waters between their various partner agencies
as consensus-builders, planners, financiers, and political and overuse of their veto powers can disrupt the working
support builders at all levels of government. Their influence relationships they have with their partner agencies. As a result,
and potential effectiveness as multimodal project partners flow MPOs work best when they refrain from using their admin-
both from above and below in the government hierarchy, with istrative "sticks" and rely on collaborative decision-making
their connections to federal, state, and local governments. techniques to reach consensus with their partners. If MPOs
MPOs coordinate short- and long-term transportation plan- emphasize these techniques, they can play a significant role
ning and federal funds programming for their regions. But as new paradigm project consensus-builders and project
their decision-making powers come from below, as their gov- financiers. However, MPOs are increasingly being given more
erning bodies are typically run by boards of constituent local prominent roles as multimodal project advocates, financiers,
government representatives.20 and even operators.
The wide-ranging scope of their responsibilities for trans-
portation modes in their region, their role as the funding con-
High-Profile MPOs: Dangers and Possibilities
duit from the federal and state levels to local modal agencies,
and their mandate to coordinate and prioritize the various Some MPOs are also taking control of existing, or devel-
transportation projects throughout their regions offer an op- oping new, regional transportation funding sources. The
portunity to facilitate multiagency partnerships that are central San Francisco Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) offers a good
to new paradigm projects. example of this trend. Prior to 1997, Caltrans was responsible
MPO agency strengths in multimodal, new paradigm for collecting and spending San Francisco Bay Area toll bridge
project partnerships include funds. In 1997, the state legislature shifted responsibility for
these funds to a new entity, BATA, which was governed by the
· Regional-level planning and project financing expertise same board as the region's MPO, the Metropolitan Transporta-
· Access to funding from multiple levels of government tion Commission (MTC). MTC's BATA has since used these
· Ongoing, staff-to-staff-level working relationships and toll monies to fund various projects around the region, in-
partnerships with local transit agencies, governments, cluding transit and highway projects in multimodal corridors.
state DOTs, and USDOT These projects include the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
· Commission/board representatives typically drawn from expansion to Warm Springs in the Interstate 880 corridor and
local government administrative and elected officials the addition of a fourth bore--effectively a freeway widening
project--in the Caldecott Tunnel in the East Bay (BART)
Pittsburg/Bay Point Line/S.R. 24 corridor.
MPOs: Potential New Paradigm Consensus-Builders
The use of these funds for projects geographically distant
Nevertheless, these MPO strengths can also manifest them- from the toll bridge facilities that generated them has raised
selves as shortcomings and obstacles when undertaking a new some objections in the region, and MTC's BATA has re-
paradigm project. With the exception of a few select funding ceived some criticism for the process it uses to allocate these
programs MPOs do not have direct authority over federal funds.20 So while MPOs seem to be growing in influence, in-
funding decisions, but share these duties with state DOTs. An cluding control over funding sources previously adminis-
tered by other levels of government, they are also entering
20
into a more politically high-profile realm that may have some
Institute of Transportation Studies & ICF Consulting, "Metropolitan-Level
Transportation Funding Sources," December 2005, http://www.transportation. negative consequences for new paradigm projects that re-
org/sites/planning/docs/NCHRP%208-36%2849%29%20Final%20Report.pdf quire collaboration with other agencies.
OCR for page 69
69
The effectiveness of MPOs in the future, both as revenue- governments have a vested interest in ensuring multimodal
collecting and project-financing bodies, will often depend on access to the land uses within their jurisdictions. Unfortunately,
the cooperation of state DOTs. As seen with Caltrans and MTC, many of our existing freeway corridors are located in primarily
some states actively support new regionally based transporta- automobile-oriented suburbs, where cars are often given pri-
tion funds. Indeed, where MPOs pursue a revenue collection ority on local streets at the expense of pedestrians, bicycles,
and financing role that reduces state DOT responsibilities and transit vehicles.
or replaces the need for scarce state funds, MPOs may find As discussed in previous chapters, an effective new paradigm
a willing and active partner at the state level. In some cases, transit line requires transit-oriented development clustered
however, state DOTs may perceive the financial empowerment around its stations, while the freeway requires automobile-
of MPOs as a threat. Even states that willingly devolve respon- oriented development near its interchanges. Ultimately, the
sibility to lower government levels may prefer to distribute success of the new paradigm rests on the ability of local govern-
that authority to counties rather than MPOs.21 ments to comprehensively plan and implement corridorwide
To help build new paradigm project partnerships, the land use configurations. However, despite their importance,
questions of roles, authority, and responsibilities need to be local governments are sometimes overlooked as multimodal
carefully and explicitly examined among project partners. corridor partners since they do not (1) have control of project
While MPOs offer valuable qualities as a lead partner on new funding sources; (2) plan, design, or operate the primary
paradigm projects, each case will be different and the institu- transportation systems (the freeway and transit line); and
tional relationships before, during, and after a new paradigm (3) generally take the lead in partnership coordination.
project is undertaken should be discussed, and in most cases, Policies and planning practices at the local government
is best formalized in the form of joint powers agreements or level can also hinder successful new paradigm corridor efforts.
other contractual mechanisms. The land use policy barriers that disadvantage transit invest-
ments are well documented and include exclusionary and fiscal
zoning policies, restrictions on density, and parking subsidies.
The Local Government Context
These policies also impede the development of multimodal
Local government participation and effectiveness are critical capacity, and it is worth considering their effects.
to the success of new paradigm corridors, both in the short and Inconsistencies in the way land use policies are implemented
long terms. In the short term, the new paradigm approach between local governments in the same corridor can also
requires effective local governments that can work with their undermine the potential success of the new paradigm. Different
partners to plan and build multimodal access facilities to and communities along a corridor may have different or conflicting
from the transit line's stations and the freeway's interchange development policies and may compete for development.
ramps. In the long-term, the success of the new paradigm ap- Comprehensive land use and access planning often depends
proach requires local government cooperation to shape the on cooperation between local governments. However, to be
land uses and the urban design qualities of the corridor to re- effective advocates for matching growth patterns and access
inforce and encourage the efficient and effective use of those improvements to the needs of the transit line and freeway in
facilities. a new paradigm corridor, it is best if local governments are
Local government strengths in multimodal, new paradigm given the power to pool their efforts and coordinate their
projects include policies and programs between neighboring jurisdictions.
Research on comprehensive planning techniques in highway
· Ownership and control of access to corridor transit and corridors suggests that these goals can be achieved either by
freeway facilities empowering local governments with state legislation to
· Ownership and control of on-street and (often) off-street encourage cooperation in land use planning or by creating
parking facilities regional agencies that have authority to do land use and
· Corridor land use controls transportation planning at a regional level.22
· Close working relationships with corridor residents, busi- However, when local governments are determined to take
nesses, and politicians a leadership role in new paradigm corridor development, state
or other legislation may not be necessary. Indeed, although
Typically, local governments control the surface street there are few examples of local governments taking a strong,
network and are responsible for zoning corridor land uses.
Streets are, by their nature, multimodal facilities, and local
22
Carlson, D., and S. King. (1998). Linking Transportation and Land use by
Fostering Inter-jurisdictional Cooperation Enabling Legislation in Eight States,
21
Sciara, C. & M. Wachs, "Metropolitan Transportation Funding", Public Works Institute of Public Policy and Management, University of Washington, Seattle,
Management & Policy, 2007, Vol. 12, No. 1, 378394. Washington.
