This presentation was made to the Florida MPO Advisory Council. It contains the results of a research project on the planning practices at all 26 MPOs in Florida. A parrallel study looked at the infrastructure funding shortfall over the next 20 years in Florida.

1. The 2008 Review of Florida’s MPO Long Range Transportation Plans Alex Bond and Jeff KramerFlorida MPOACOctober 23, 2008

2. About the Review Prior reviews in 1997 and 2002 Includes plans adopted between 2003 and 2006 Project began October 2007 Report release date: November

3. Methodology Collect hard copies of all 25 LRTPs Reviewed each plan and supporting documentation Extracted financial data for shortfall estimate Follow-up with each MPO

4. Observations of Planning Practice

5. Improved User-Friendliness Text more descriptive, more maps and graphics Elimination of modeling data Less unexplained jargon Summary documents and handouts more common

6. The Internet All LRTPs on the Internet Some were only available electronically Some formats work poorly for internet publication

7. Authorship One-quarter of plans were authored in-house Nine consulting firms authored the rest Some replication of critical plan components

8. Public Involvement MPOs are going well beyond state and federal law Many excellent examples of public involvement Did not demonstrate how involvement impacted the final plan Widespread attempts to brand MPOs

9. Public Involvement

10. ETDM and Local Studies ETDM is being used by every MPO Nationwide model, very effective Fewer local studies ETDM-only analysis may miss local issues

11. Transit Increased emphasison transit All MPOs discuss transit, almost all have at least one transit project Often, revenues are being analyzed before needs

12. Bicycle and Pedestrian Deeply ingrained into LRTPs Included in all new roadways Vast networks planned Well-funded, sometimes with boxed funds

13. Strategic Intermodal System Difficulty adjusting to the SIS Some note loss of reasonablyanticipated revenue Uncertain which projects funded by SIS Cost Feasible Plan

14. Interagency Coordination Institutionalized and perpetual Better coordination with CIPs Seventeen MPOs join multi-MPO organizations Uncertain how to relate to toll authorities and incorporate their projects

15. Financial Reporting Base and horizon yearsvaried, some includeTIP years Plan length varied from 15 to 25 years Many MPOs include operations and maintenance Some local sources expire before horizon year

16. Twenty-year Statewide funding shortfall $62,472,500,000

17. Shortfall Details $62.5 billion over twenty years $3.1 billion per year Shortfall is growing Shortfall by MPO available in report

18. Shortfall Methodology

19. Suggestions MPOs should relate how information gained during public involvement activities was incorporated into the LRTP document and the projects it contains. MPOs should continue to refine their LRTPs for Internet publication. Consider the goals of the Florida Transportation Plan when drafting the goals and objectives of the LRTP.

20. Suggestions ETDM is an outstanding tool, but the strength of MPO planning is the insertion of local knowledge into the planning process. MPOs should exercise more editorial control over the content of plans authored by consultants, with the aim of crafting a document that is original and customized. Establish transit needs before revenues are analyzed.

21. Suggestions Even though the Internet will be the primary source for LRTP distribution, at least a limited number of documents should be made available in hard copy format. MPOs should not separate needs on SIS facilities from non-SIS facilities during the analysis and project selection process.

22. Suggestions MPOs should demonstrate their expertise in planning for the transportation disadvantaged in the LRTP. Guidance on how to analyze and consider toll projects would be helpful when planning for these types of roadways. MPOs should continue to work with FDOT to make the investment policy flexible enough to implement the MPO mission.

23. Suggestions Evacuation routes should play a larger role in deciding which projects are included in the cost feasible plan. MPOs should take greater care to demonstrate and document how the projects contained in their cost feasible plan support the adopted goals and objectives of the LRTP.

24. Questions? Comments? Alex Bond, AICPALBond@cutr.usf.edu (813) 974-9779 Jeff Kramer, AICPKramer@cutr.usf.edu(813) 974-1397 Look for the report in November