1 / 17

California Statutes Affecting MPOs

California Statutes Affecting MPOs . Therese W. McMillan Deputy Executive Director, Policy Metropolitan Transportation Commission TRB Annual Meeting January 2008. The California Context. CA has long history of state based regional planning directives Federal designations:

ojal
Download Presentation

California Statutes Affecting MPOs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. California StatutesAffecting MPOs Therese W. McMillan Deputy Executive Director, Policy Metropolitan Transportation Commission TRB Annual Meeting January 2008

  2. The California Context • CA has long history of state based regional planning directives • Federal designations: 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) • State designations: 26 Regional Transportation Planning Agencies • Some overlap

  3. Source: 2007 California Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines

  4. Mid-1970’s: State Statutes mandated coordination between federal and state planning responsibilities • State has independent – and unique – regional participation requirements for fund programming • To extent MPO/RTPA designation is shared, augmented state responsibilities strengthen and enhance federal MPO responsibilities

  5. Planning

  6. Long Range Planning:Government Code 65030 • 1972: State regulations requiring Regional Transportation Plans (RTP) • Mid-70’s amendments to require state and federal coordination for regional planning • RTP to satisfy both MPO and RTPA responsibilities: California Transportation Commission RTP Guidelines(http://www.catc.ca.gov/RTP/2007_RTP_Guidelines.pdf )

  7. Land Use/Transportation Planning • State legislation begins with 1989 Transportation Blueprint – county focus • Limited regional land use authority / while challenged periodically in legislature, locals still rule • Regional “blueprint” planning legislated as voluntary activity (Gov. Code 65080.3) • Example in MTC area: Joint Policy Committee legislation

  8. Air Quality Planning • California has independent state air quality standards – more stringent than federal standards • CA MPOs in non-attainment areas by definition must address both federal and state air quality planning requirements; however federal implementation and adherence more rigorous

  9. Climate Change • Assembly Bill 32: California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 • Mandated Greenhouse Gas Reductions – 1990 levels by 2020 • Will require some role for regional agencies: transportation contributions to GHG • 41% - California • 50% - San Francisco Bay Area

  10. Climate Change • Senate Bill 375 currently in legislature anticipates regional role – MPO with state RTPA designation would be in play if passed • Irrespective, AB 32 implementation regs are being developed – expect regional transportation responsibilities

  11. Fund Programming

  12. Source: 2007 California Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines

  13. Senate Bill 1435:Statutes of 1992 • Aligned federal planning and programming est. in ISTEA with state regulations • Required subvention of Surface Transportation Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality programming decisions to MPOs/RTPAs • Ground breaking provision continued through TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU authorization periods

  14. Senate Bill 45: Statutes of 1997 • Established guidelines for regional programming decisions for funds in State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) • Roughly $1.2 billion per year (2005-06) • 75% of STIP $ to regions for programming • Limited state intervention • STIP funded through State Highway Account • Composed of both state and federal program (e.g. NHS, IM, state share of STP, TEA, etc.)

  15. A Case for the California Advantage • Federal Legislative intent reinforced with tradition of state legislation supporting regional transportation planning and programming • Additional state responsibilities are consciously meshed with like federal requirements

  16. A Case for the California Advantage • State mandated regional discretionary funding provides impact for regional transportation planning and investment decisions • State’s “leading edge” activities (e.g. climate change) provide leadership opportunities for MPOs – and some measure of risk…

  17. www.mtc.ca.gov Therese McMillan Deputy Executive Director, Policy

More Related