Metropolitanism

1. Metropolitanism Elizabeth Deakin Sept. 13, 2011

2. Why metropolitan areas matter • Scale at which economies function = metropolitan regions (labor markets, commute sheds) • Much evidence that vibrant metropolitan areas, and particularly their cities, are the context for innovation – many people, and ideas, brushing up against each other leads to fast learning • Many urban problems are best managed at a regional scale - air pollution, water quality, protection of watersheds, many transit services, scarce resources such as Lake Tahoe or the San Francisco Bay

3. Metropolitan Planning Agencies: Origins • Regional planning agencies were established many years ago to provide forward-looking visions of prosperous, healthy urban growth, e.g. Regional Plan Association of NYC • The idea of regional planning was adopted in federal programs in the 1960s to provide a counterbalance to state agencies that were often rurally dominated, controlled by independent commissions, focused on large infrastructure that did not necessarily work in cities • Comprehensive planning, transportation studies were the early tasks assigned to RPAs – putting together plans for the region

4. Councils of Government as RPAs • Councils of govt. were designated the RPAs in many areas – most COGs voluntary associations of government established to further local development interests and coordinate at the regional level • Many interests – local govt., development - saw regional planning as a potential threat to autonomy and aim for RPA was to limit its reach • Plans became accumulations of local proposals (cities, counties, special purpose agencies such as county transportation commissions) rather than visions of a common future • State agencies often retained ultimate say over important infrastructure and could hold regions hostage (want funds? Do what we say)

5. Results of Bottom-Up Planning • Investments chosen to meet local needs and interests may not add up to the best strategy for the overall region – may not result in clean air or successful infrastructure performance, e.g. • Some local govts. pursue fiscal and exclusionary policies to the detriment of the region • Regional planning staff role can devolve into delivering the message (directly or indirectly) that some local plans and proposed projects are unlikely, or would be problematic– simply summing up local plans often creates way more jobs than housing, for example

6. MPOS since ISTEA • Greater responsibility for funding decisions • Control over some of the funding (15% on average – more in some regions) BUT • No clear performance standards, other than perhaps CAA conformity (additional mandates in some states) • Most have very limited authority to mandate local action • Incentives: what can be done with discretionary funds (mostly small amounts) – some have larger amounts of discretionary funding

7. Current State of Affairs, US • Most MPOs are voluntary associations that cannot mandate local action but instead handle statistics, forecasts, clearinghouse functions for the region; only some plan elements are “committed” • Most have limited assets to use to direct growth – locals or state agencies are in charge of most decisions • Most have a council of governments function, with varied efficacy (defensive actions and back scratching vs. consensus building) • In some regions, proliferation of special purpose agencies to handle federal or state mandates (when action really must be taken) • Many regional agencies are almost invisible to the public

8. New Directions in CA? Blueprint Planning, SB 375 • Blueprint aim was to come up with a strategy that would show attainment of national ambient aur quality standards rather than continued violations • Also responded to interest groups that advocated more compact growth to preserve open space, agriculture at the metro fringe, increase transit use, walking, biking by through compact and transit-oriented development • SB 375 planning is building on blueprint plans and also local climate action plans (~75 so far being pursued in CA) • Plans to date include more walk, bike improvements, transit, congestion relief, a little transportation pricing, parking management. • UC survey of local govts in CA – FRUSTRATION that incentives to actually implement blueprint, CAP, SB375 ideas are not available and those that have been available are being removed • Hostility from some interests – impinge on desires for sf housing on large lots and cars to work?

9. Bright Spots in Growing Regions • Strong technical assistance to local governments: San Diego, Dallas-Ft. Worth • Strong consensus-building efforts: Salt Lake City, Portland (elected council) • Strongly improved analysis methods: DFW, Denver, Sacramento, Portland • Revenue sharing strategies for managing economic impact: Minneapolis-St Paul • Effective coordination of regional environmental issues: Denver, MSP, Florida MPOs • Transit-oriented development (TOD): Portland • Innovative small programs on livability, housing and transportation, TOD: MSP, San Francisco Bay Area • Also see some very important CITY-led projects – New York traffic management, bike, ped plans, Chicago green city projects (SF Bay Area also has many such examples in its larger cities)

10. Why are some spots brighter than others? • Entrepreneurial staff have led some activities, progressive elected officials have led others BUT • Many of the MPOs on the list of “bright spots” have state mandates for action • Some have authority to act – tools to use – to ensure their plans, once adopted, are implemented • Performance measures and consequences for not acting • CA has few such mandates or tools – SB 375, for ex., explicitly says that nothing in it mandates local govt. change, and it doesn’t provide much in the way of incentives • If mandates are not forthcoming, then agencies must rely on consensus building – new forms of governance (many of which also rely on aligning resources, incentives with desired actions)

11. New Directions – Worldwide Efforts on Sustainable Development • US, CA slowly moving from single purpose planning to multi-objective planning • BUT • In other countries movement is from integrated transportation-land use planning to ecocity planning – adding environmental and energy considerations into regional, local and site plans • Much greater integration of T, LU, environmental considerations – planning teams that are cross-trained • Reorganizing agencies to accomplish this into new urban development agencies – happening at the national level (e.g, Sweden) as well as at metro level

12. The Big Question: What Do We Want Regional Agencies to Do? Candidate list of desired outcomes: • A thriving economy • Safe and attractive neighborhoods • an adequate supply of affordable housing for all income groups (including affordable housing) • Good schools • A healthy environment - air pollution standards met, water quality standards met, greenhouse gas emissions targets met, solid wastes minimized and managed, ecosystems protected… • Social, cultural, recreational opportunities for a variety of preferences • Resiliency – ability to handle “shocks”, bounce back • Democratic, transparent, widely supported results What can regional agencies contribute to such goals? How would we design agencies to try to do these things?

13. Strategies for High-Performing Organizations • A vision of the future and specific goals, objectives, benchmarks • Performance measures – to mark progress toward achievement • Consequences for failing to achieve results • Adequate resources to accomplish objectives • Authority to act to achieve responsibilities • Mandates for action, and/or strong incentives to get others to act

14. Metropolitan Governance? • Building a majority constituency for metropolitan governance may be the biggest challenge • Balancing desires for local control and individual action with desire to reduce negative externalities, capture new opportunities - but neither bad consequences nor possible benefits may be understood • Benefits of different ways of governing regions are not visible – need to find ways of communicating vision • Regional plans as abstract ideas for a “distant” future? Need to find ways to get ideas across (visuals help!) • may require public involvement in new ways • Who should be at the table – what about transit agencies, water agencies, oher key regional players? Private sector interests? • Proportional representation? Population weighted voting? • The competition – urban regions across the world – is already moving on this set of issues – could we be left behind by failure to take this seriously?