1 / 58

Indianapolis MPO Structure Study IMPO and Peer Structures

Indianapolis MPO Structure Study IMPO and Peer Structures. Updated April 12 th , 2013 DRAFT. 14 Indiana MPOs. Madison County Council of Governments (MCCOG) Bloomington / Monroe County Metropolitan Planning Organization (BMCMPO) Columbus Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO)

olin
Download Presentation

Indianapolis MPO Structure Study IMPO and Peer Structures

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. Indianapolis MPO Structure StudyIMPO and Peer Structures Updated April 12th, 2013 DRAFT DRAFT

  2. 14 Indiana MPOs • Madison County Council of Governments (MCCOG) • Bloomington / Monroe County Metropolitan Planning Organization (BMCMPO) • Columbus Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) • Delaware-Muncie Metropolitan Plan Commission (DMMPC) • Evansville Metropolitan Planning Organization (EMPO) • Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization (IMPO) • Kokomo-Howard County Governmental Coordinating Council (KHCGCC) • Kentuckiana Regional Planning and Development Agency (KIPDA) • Michiana Area Council of Governments – South Bend (MACOG) • Northeastern Indiana Regional Coordinating Council – Fort Wayne (NIRCC) • Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission – Lake, Porter, and LaPorte Counties (NIRPC) • Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments – Cincinnati (OKI) Dearborn County Indiana • Tippecanoe County Area Plan Commission – Lafayette (TCAPC) • West Central Indiana Economic Development District – Terre Haute (WCIEDD) DRAFT

  3. Core MPO Functions Metropolitan Planning & Programming (Title 23 CFR, Volume 1, Part 450; Title 49 CFR, Part 613) • The metropolitan planning process establishes a Cooperative, Continuous, and Comprehensive (the 3 Cs) framework for making transportation investment decisions in metropolitan areas. • Scope of the Metro Transportation Planning Process: • Provides for consideration and implementation of projects, strategies, and services that will address the following Planning Factors (summarized): • Economic vitality of the metro area • Increase safety and security • Increase accessibility and mobility of people and freight • Protect and enhance the environment • Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system • Promote efficient system management and operation • Emphasize the preservation of the existing system • The FHWA and FTA jointly reviews the planning process every 4 years to determine if the process the meets federal law. This review includes the MPO, Transit operators, and the State. DRAFT

  4. Core MPO Functions • Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) • MPOs receive planning funds from FHWA and FTA that must be documented in the UPWP • Must include a discussion of the planning priorities facing the region and activities that reflect the Planning Factors • Carried out through coordination with local governments, State DOT, and Public Transit operators • Indicates who will perform the work, the schedule for completing the work, the resulting products, and proposed funding by activity/task, and summary of total amounts and sources of federal and matching funds DRAFT

  5. Core MPO Functions • Long Range Metropolitan Transportation Plan (LRTP) • No less than 20-year planning horizon • Reviewed every 4 years at minimum to confirm the Plan’s validity and consistency with current and forecasted transportation and land use conditions and trends • Shall include at minimum: • Projected transportation demand of persons and goods • Existing and proposed transportation facilities with emphasis on facilities that serve important national and regional transportation functions • The Locally Preferred Alternative selected from an Alternatives Analysis (FTA) DRAFT

  6. Core MPO Functions • LRTP content continued • Operational and management strategies to improve the performance of existing facilities • Assessment of capital investment and other strategies to preserve the existing and project future metropolitan infrastructure and provide for multimodal capacity • Design concept and scope descriptions of all existing and proposed facilities in sufficient detail, regardless of funding source • A financial plan that demonstrates how the adopted plan can be implemented • Must show air quality conformity DRAFT

  7. Core MPO Functions • Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) • Short range; reflects the first years of LRTP • Covers no less than 4 years and must be approved by the MPO and Governor • Must be compatible with the State TIP (STIP) • Includes capital and non-capital surface transportation projects (or phases) within the region • Must show air quality conformity DRAFT

  8. Methodology • Literature Review • Including government studies, academic literature, other peer studies • Past IMPO Strategic Study (2006) and internal documents from previous years • Available documents from peer MPOs • UPWPs • By laws • Policies and Procedures Manuals • Determined and gathered needed information • Based on existing matrix, literature review, available documents • Contacted each peer MPO • Received additional literature • Performed follow-up as needed DRAFT

  9. MPO (Indianapolis) Marion County + Portions of 7 Surrounding Counties DRAFT

  10. MPO (Indianapolis) Marion County + Portions of 7 Surrounding Counties • Services • Traffic Counting • Travel Demand Forecasting • Transit Planning • GIS • Intelligent Transportation Systems • Freight Planning • Key Stats • 1,487,483 UZA population • $5.7 million operating budget • 13 employees (1 administrator) • 1,500 sq. mi. • 41 Policy Committee Voting Members includes 35 jurisdictions • Policy Committee has final say on distribution of funds, Federal 3C process, approval of documents • City provides office space, parking, in kind services, and serves as fiscal agent DRAFT

  11. Peer Indiana MPOs DRAFT

  12. KIPDA (Louisville) 2 Indiana Counties and 5 Kentucky Counties DRAFT

  13. KIPDA (Louisville) 2 Indiana Counties and 5 Kentucky Counties • Services • Land Use Planning • Traffic Counts • GIS • Transit Planning • Intelligent Transportation Systems • Freight Planning • Mobility Services • Rideshare • Key Stats • 972,546 UZA population • $3.35 million operating budget • 23 employees (5 admin/finance) • 18 voting members on Transportation Policy Committee • 19 LPAs • Policy Committee has final say on distribution of funds, Federal 3C process, approval of documents DRAFT

  14. NIRPC (NW Indiana) Lake, Porter, and LaPorte Counties DRAFT

  15. NIRPC (NW Indiana) Lake, Porter, and LaPorte Counties • Services • Transit Planning • Water Resources Planning • Land Use Planning • Travel Demand Forecasting • Data Collection • Intelligent Transportation Systems • GIS • Freight Planning • Key Stats • 771,648 UZA population • $3.6 million operating budget • 28 employees (12 admin/finance) • 1,520 sq. mi. • 53 Voting Members • 46 LPAs • Independent DRAFT

  16. Peer National MPOs DRAFT

  17. MVRPC(Dayton) 3 counties | Water planning for 2 DRAFT

  18. MVRPC (Dayton) 3 counties | Water planning for 2 • Services • Traffic Counting • Land Use Planning • Travel Demand Forecasting • GIS • Transit Planning • Freight Planning • Water Quality Planning • Mobility Services • Ridesharing • Key Stats • 724,091 UZA Pop. • $4.5 million operating budget • 22employees (3 admin/finance) • 2,340 sq. mi. • 78 Voting Members • 50 LPAs • Independent structure but does not handle its own money (County) DRAFT

  19. MORPC (Columbus) 4 counties DRAFT

  20. MORPC (Columbus) 4 counties • Services • Traffic Count • Land Use Planning • Travel Demand Forecasting • Transit Planning • NO Freight Planning • Mobility Services • Ridesharing • Key Stats • 1,368,035 UZA Pop. • $5.8 million operating budget • 32 employees (6 admin/finance) • 1,135 sq. mi. • 37 Voting Members • 47 LPAs • Independent structurebut county handles money DRAFT

  21. EWGCOG (St. Louis) 3 counties in Missouri | 3 counties in Illinois DRAFT

  22. EWGCOG(St. Louis) 3 counties in Missouri | 3 counties in Illinois • Services • Traffic Counting • Sustainability • Travel Demand Forecasting • GIS • Transit Planning • Intelligent Transportation Systems • Freight Planning • Water Quality Planning • Key Stats • 2,150,706 UZA Pop. • $41million operating budget* • 18employees (1 admin/finance)* • Transportation only • 4,500 sq. mi. • 24 Voting Members • 18 LPAs • Independent COG structure DRAFT

  23. NAMPO(Nashville) 5 counties DRAFT

  24. NAMPO (Nashville) 5 counties • Services • Sustainability • GIS • Transit Planning • Travel Demand Forecasting • Intelligent Transportation Systems • Freight Planning • Key Stats • 1,617,142 UZA Pop. • $4.8 million operating budget • 11 employees (3 admin/finance) • 2,800 sq. mi. • 24 Voting Members • 26 LPAs • Independent structure* • Do not consider themselves independent but no determination as to role of Metro Nashville in any decision-making DRAFT

  25. MUMPO (Charlotte) 4 counties DRAFT

  26. MUMPO (Charlotte) 4 counties • Services • GIS • Traffic Counting • Travel Demand Modeling • Transit Planning • Freight Planning • Key Stats • 1,249,442 UZA Pop. • $2.3 million operating budget • 3 employees (1 admin/finance) • Others shared with Planning • 929 sq. mi. • 17 Voting Members • 17 LPAs • Charlotte-Mecklenburg Co. Planning Dept. • City as Fiscal Agent DRAFT

  27. NFTPO (Jacksonville) 4 counties DRAFT

  28. NFTPO (Jacksonville) 4 counties • Services • Traffic Counting • Travel Demand Forecasting • GIS • Transit Planning • Intelligent Transportation Systems • Freight Planning • Mobility Services • Ridesharing • Key Stats • 1,065,219 UZA Pop. • $11.9million operating budget • 9 employees (4 admin/finance) • 3,000 sq. mi. • 15 Voting Members • 11 LPAs • Independent • Some services contracted through Jacksonville Transit Authority DRAFT

  29. MAG (Phoenix) Maricopa County DRAFT

  30. MAG (Phoenix) Maricopa County • Services • Traffic counting • Land Use Planning • Sustainability • Travel Demand Forecasting • GIS • Transit Planning • Intelligent Transportation Systems • Freight Planning • Other Significant Operating Services: • Transit operations • Mobility Services • Water Planning • Parks • Affordable Housing • E-911 • Criminal Justice • Key Stats • 3,629,114 UZA Pop. • $29.6 million operating budget • 32 employees (2 admin)* • Transportation only • 10,600 sq. mi. • 32 Voting Members • 30 LPAs • Independent DRAFT

  31. SANDAG (San Diego) San Diego County DRAFT

  32. SANDAG (San Diego) San Diego County • Services • Traffic Counting • Land Use Planning • Sustainability • Travel Demand Forecasting • GIS • Transit Planning • ITS • Freight Planning • Mobility Services • Ridesharing • Key Stats • 2,956,746 UZA Pop. • $60million operating budget • 37employees (2admin/finance)* • Transportation Dept. only • 21 Voting Members • 19 LPAs • Independent DRAFT

  33. Met Council (Minneapolis-St. Paul) 7 counties DRAFT

  34. Met Council (Minneapolis-St. Paul) 7 counties • Services • Traffic Counting • Land Use Planning • Sustainability • GIS • Transit Planning • TDM • ITS • Freight • Other: • Transit operations • Mobility Services • Water • Parks • Affordable Housing • Airports • Key Stats • 2,650,890 UZA Pop. • $5.2million operating budget* • Transportation only • 20 employees (2 admin/finance) • 33 Voting Members • 30 LPAs • Independent DRAFT

  35. Summary • Peer MPO structures vary but only one is administratively hosted.* MUMPO in Charlotte is hosted by Charlotte Mecklenburg Planning Department. • Degree of independence varies. NFTPO recently (2003) became independent after its borders expanded. It still contracts services and space from the local transit authority • Local funding equivalent to 14%. This percentage reflects the median of the group; Indianapolis is at 13% • Consultants account for 29% of UPWP. Consultants are used to complete special studies. Indianapolis is at 60%* • …but typically not for core function pieces. Of those MPOs interviewed, all indicated that core function parts are completed in-house, although special studies that are included in the core function plans are completed by consultants. • Per capita assessment is common. With a notable exception, all MPOs utilize a per capita formula to raise local matching dollars. MPOs assess between 12.5 cents per capita and 70 cents. • …with great rate of return. MPOs median UPWP dollars per capita is $4.03. The local dollars leverage federal PL and grant monies, in addition to any state dollars contributed. DRAFT

  36. Summary Cont. • Median staff per capita is 102,724. There is no national guideline* for the amount of staff needed. Staffing levels should be determined by regional needs. • Local match charges vary but a per capita method is common. • Most MPOs cover reimbursement costs through a designated reserve fund. DRAFT

  37. History of the Indianapolis MPO

  38. Indianapolis Urbanized Area Population

  39. Indianapolis MPO History 1962 Federal Highway Act created the comprehensive transportation planning program for urbanized areas 1968 Indianapolis Regional Transportation and Development Study (IRTADS) Initiated as a cooperative venture by the City of Indianapolis, the Metropolitan Plan Commission of Marion County, the Indiana State Highway Commission, the FHWA, and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1976 Indianapolis Regional Transportation Council, Special Task Force on IRTC Reorganization, Report to the Council (2/24/76) Established Policy and Interagency Technical Coordination Committees, and various Special Task Forces Recognized “the IRTC as an ad hoc committee on transportation matters…of concern to the designated MPO, the Metropolitan Development Commission” Identified membership of IRTC Policy and Interagency Technical Coordination Committees

  40. 1976 IRTC Membership 16 Voting, 4 Non voting

  41. 1978 MOU / 1980 Planning Agreement • 1978 Memorandum of Understanding between DMD (MPO) and the Indiana State Highway Commission • MPO agrees to maintain Policy and Technical Committees to guide the transportation planning process, as well as a citizen participation mechanism; • MPO agrees to maintain an organizational arrangement which provides for the representation of all principal elected officials of the general purpose local governments within the jurisdiction of the MPO; • ISHC agrees to participate and cooperate in 3C process and fulfilling state administrative responsibilities for the use of PL funds; • 1980 Joint Transit Planning Agreement between DMD, the Indianapolis DOT, and IPTC • DMD will be primarily responsible for transit planning activities appropriate for the development and continuing evaluation of a unified urban transportation system…of the Indianapolis Urbanized Area. • IPTC will be responsible for the Transit Development Program and other immediate activities related to bus system operations. • Pass through UMTA funds

  42. Impact of ISTEA (1991)Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 • Presented overall intermodal approach to highway and transit funding with collaborative planning requirements • Provided additional federal planning funds to MPOs • Expanded MPO authority to select projects and required state DOTs to consult with MPOs on projects in urban areas • Greater emphasis on public involvement • Required fiscal constraint of transportation plans

  43. Growth of the Region • 1980s • Added Hendricks and Hancock Counties, New Whiteland and Whiteland to the urbanized area • 1990s • Added Avon, Plainfield, Brownsburg, Zionsville, Westfield, and Cumberland • 2000s • Added Atlanta, Arcadia, Bargersville, Brooklyn, Cicero, Danville, Franklin, McCordsville, Mooresville, New Palestine, Noblesville, and Pittsboro

  44. 2008 MOU (DMD, INDOT, and IPTC) • Includes General Transportation Planning Issues, Public Involvement, Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program, Management Systems, Travel Simulation Model, INDOT Planning Activities, Air Quality Conformity, and Transit Planning Activities. • Organizational structure consists of a Citizen Advisory Committee and IRTC Policy and Technical Committees; IRTC is advisory to the MDC, the formal policy-setting body for the MPO.

  45. 2008 Policy Board Members

  46. 2009/2010 • MPO Bylaws updated • Pay to play made official • MPO Redesignated • MPO moved from a section of the Division of Planning in the DMD to its own Division of Metropolitan Planning Organization in the DMD (codified in municipal code) • IRTC approves UPWP, IRTIP, and LRTP • MDC maintains approval of consultants contracting

  47. 2012 Urbanized Area Boundary • Added Greenfield to UAB and to IRTC • Share boundary lines with Anderson and Columbus urbanized areas • Fortville and Ingalls are in the census designated Indianapolis Urbanized Area but members of the Anderson MPO (Madison County Council of Governments) • Columbus urbanized area includes Edinburgh but for air quality conformity process, is included in the Indianapolis MPA

  48. Impact of MAP-21 • Reduction in PL funding • Affects number of plans we can perform on an annual basis • Two-year authorization • Uncertain level of federal funding beyond authorization period • Performance-Based Planning Process (pbpp) • Incorporated into Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) but additional modifications will occur for next update • Emphasis on safety and maintenance DRAFT

  49. Board Structure and Policies Policy Committee, Technical Committee, and Administrative Committee DRAFT

More Related