Flagler County MPO Forum

Document Sample
Flagler County MPO Forum Powered By Docstoc
					Flagler County MPO Forum



   Friday, January 22, 2010
       Hilton Garden Inn
        Palm Coast, FL
   Flagler County MPO Forum
                   Agenda
Welcome (Charlie Faulkner, Vice Chair, FCARD)
Speaker Introductions (Sans Lassiter, Chair, VCARD)
MPO 101 – Harry Barley, Exec. Dir., MetroPlan
MPO Considerations – Bob Romig, Robert Romig &
Associates
Large MPO Perspectives – Harry Barley, MetroPlan
New MPO Perspectives – TJ Fish, Exec. Dir., Lake-
Sumter MPO
Panel Discussion
Questions of the Panel from the Audience
Closing Remarks (Charlie Faulkner, Vice Chair, FCARD)
Lunch
Flagler County Population Growth
Flagler County Agency Relationships

                 CENTRAL & NORTHEAST FLORIDA
                          COUNTIES
Flagler County Agency Relationships

                  FDOT DISTRICT BOUNDARIES




                        Counties
Flagler County Agency Relationships

                 REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCILS




                        Counties   FDOT Districts
Flagler County Agency Relationships

               METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS




                           Counties       FDOT Districts




                           Regional Planning
                               Councils
Flagler County Agency Relationships
           (It’s Complicated)
                  COUNTIES, FDOT DISTRICTS, RPCs, MPOs




                              Counties       FDOT Districts




                              Regional Planning    MPOs
                                  Councils
 Speaker Introductions




Sans Lassiter, Chair, VCARD
     Flagler County MPO Forum
            MPO Responsibilities
                January 22, 2010




Harold W. Barley
Executive Director
Purpose


• Frame today’s conversation

• Required versus discretionary

• Avoid role confusion
Authority


•   Federal law
•   State law
•   Interlocal agreement
•   Board action:
    – Vision and mission
    – Unified Planning Work Program
Responsibilities


• Develop transportation plans and programs
• Management and operations
• Continuous, Cooperative and Comprehensive
  planning
• Planning and programming of various facilities
Responsibilities


• Forum for cooperative
  decision-making

• Perform all acts
  required to qualify for
  federal aid
Required Products


• Long Range Transportation Plan
• Transportation Improvement Program
• Financial plan for LRTP and TIP
• Prioritized Project List
• Annual Unified Planning Work
  Program
Required Products



• Public Involvement Plan
• Congestion Management System
• Publish annual list of federally-funded projects
• Agreements
Required Activities



• Studies and technical activities
• Training for board members
• Coordination with surrounding MPOs
Required Process

• Technical Advisory
  Committee

• Citizens Advisory
  Committee

• Public involvement
Plan Development
Projects and strategies must:
• Support economic development
• Increase safety and security
• Increase mobility options for
  people and freight
• Protect and enhance the
  environment
 Plan Development


Projects and strategies also must:
• Promote energy conservation
• Improve quality of life
• Enhance system connectivity
• Promote efficient management and
  operations
• Preserve current system
Discretionary
Products & Activities

                        • Bicycle & Pedestrian
                          Advisory Committee
                        • Municipal Advisory
                          Committee
                        • Transportation
                          Disadvantaged Board
                        • Central Florida
                          Clean Air Team
Discretionary
Products & Activities

• Legislative program
• Business outreach
• Funding initiatives
• Integration of land use
  and transportation
• Concurrency
  management
An MPO is not:



 • a direct provider of transportation services
 • a construction management agency
 • an agency with revenue-generating or
   taxing authority
MPO Designations
VCARD/FCARD Flagler MPO Forum
January 22, 2010
              Purpose

Background on MPO Designations

Review Prior Census Experience

Overview MPO Funding

Proposed Federal Legislation



                                 26
       MPO Designations
MPOs to be designated in areas over 50,000
as defined by Bureau of the Census
MPO boundary contains the urbanized area
plus contiguous areas expected to become
urbanized within the next 20 years
Governor and local officials must agree on
designation and boundaries
Governor must review and reapportion MPO
Board membership based upon decennial
census (State law)


                                             27
               2000 Census Results
Four new urbanized areas
    St. Augustine (North Florida
    TPO)
    Lady Lake (Lake-Sumter MPO)
    Leesburg-Eustis (Lake-Sumter
    MPO)
    Zephyrhills (Pasco MPO)

Existing urbanized areas
merged
    Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm
    Beach Urbanized Areas merged
    to form Miami Urbanized Area
    Ft. Pierce and Stuart Urbanized
    Areas merged to form Port St.
    Lucie Urbanized Area




                                      28
Issues Identified by 2000 Census

 Growth across county boundaries
 Urbanized areas growing together
 Regional economic centers and
 transportation networks emerging
 More intercity and intercounty commuting




                                            29
          Urbanized Area
      (Based on 2000 Census)

                         Palm Coast
                      Beverly Beach
Bunnell
                       Flagler Beach

                      Ormond Beach
     Journey to Work
Flagler County Residents




             Source: Census 2000 County-to-County
             Worker Flow Files (2003)
        The State Position
Stronger coordination at regional, inter-
regional, and statewide levels is needed
Discourage the creation of new MPOs
Existing MPOs and new urbanized areas were
asked to:
◦ 1) Consolidate MPOs and/or expand boundaries to
  include new urbanized areas, or
◦ 2) Develop and implement regional coordination
  mechanisms



                                                32
Concerns Expressed by MPOs and
       Urbanized Areas

  Priority setting/Loss of control
  Differing goals among adjacent MPOs
  Public involvement will be more difficult




                                              33
Concerns Expressed by MPOs and
       Urbanized Areas
  Is the MPO’s mission to be local or regional?
  Roles and responsibilities for regional planning
  need to be clear
  Statutory cap on size of MPO Board (19)
  prevents adequate representation as size of
  the MPO increases
  Existing coordination efforts are effective



                                                     34
Coordination Options Identified
 Interlocal agreements
 Joint meetings of MPO Boards and/or staff
 directors
 analyze differences in MPO plans and link
 common elements
 Use regional transportation models
 Develop regional needs plans
 Develop regional public involvement plans



                                             35
     MPO Planning Funds
Federal “PL” Funds
◦ Off-the-top allocation from select federal
  transportation programs
◦ Allocated to states based upon urbanized area
  population of state compared to urbanized area
  population of all states
◦ Florida apportionment is approx. $20-$23 million/year
  (2010-2015)
Federal Transit Administration (Sec. 5303)
◦ Transit planning funds for urbanized areas
◦ Distributed to MPOs by formula (population, revenue
  miles, and passenger trips)
FDOT Support/Transportation Disadvantaged
Grants
                                                     36
Federal Planning Funding Allocations to
                MPOs
    PL formula approved by Florida MPOs
    ◦ $582,605 to MPOAC
    ◦ $350,000 base amount to each MPO
    ◦ $600,000 for regional planning.(allocated to each
      MPO based on population)
    ◦ Remaining balance allocated based upon the
      population of each urbanized area as a percentage of
      total urbanized area population in the state




                                                        37
     The Proposed Federal Surface
Transportation Authorization Act of 2009

    Increases population threshold for MPO
    designation to 100,000
    Grandfathers existing MPOs if the Governor
    and local governments agree
    Strengthens the planning process for the largest
    metropolitan areas
    Strengthens role of rural agencies in the
    statewide planning process

                                                  38
MPO Designation Anticipated Timeline

   2010: Census conducted
   2012 (Spring): Census issues urbanized
   area boundaries
   2013 (Spring/Summer): MPO designations
   by Governor
   2014: Apportionment of federal funds


  Note: Timeline is based upon events of the 2000 Census

                                                           39
                Summary
MPOs will be under increasing pressure to plan
“regionally”
◦ The 2010 Census will likely show continued
  urbanized growth across county lines
◦ Increased emphasis will be placed on regional
  planning, including air quality and climate change
Key issue is whether MPOs be effective at both
metropolitan and regional planning
Flagler County should closely monitor the new
federal transportation legislation and the 2010
Census urbanized area designation process

                                                       40
     Flagler County MPO Forum
          Large MPO Perspective
                January 22, 2010




Harold W. Barley
Executive Director
Purpose


• Organization overview

• Our evolution

• Formation considerations

• Lake County relationship
METROPLAN ORLANDO

                                 Seminole
• 3-county MPO
                               Orange
• 1.8 million people

• Independent organization         Osceola


• $5.4 million annual budget

• 18 staff members
 Governance


• 19 voting Board members

• 3 counties; largest cities

• 4 transportation agencies

• 6 non-voting members
Financials
Discretionary Activities

                       • Bicycle & Pedestrian
                         Advisory Committee
                       • Municipal Advisory
                         Committee
                       • Transportation
                         Disadvantaged Board
                       • Central Florida
                         Clean Air Team
   Other Activities


• Legislative program
• Business outreach
• Funding initiatives
• Integration of land use
  and transportation
• Concurrency
  management
 Our evolution


• 1976 – MPO created; hosted by RPC

• 1996 – METROPLAN ORLANDO; autonomous

• 1996 – Outreach to neighboring MPOs

• 2010 – New federal transportation bill
Formation of Orlando-Volusia MPO Alliance - June 1997

METROPLAN ORLANDO-Brevard County cooperative
   planning agreement - May 1999



METROPLAN ORLANDO-Lake County
  cooperative planning agreement –
  May 2000


Central Florida MPO Alliance –
  January 2001


Polk TPO joins Alliance – May 2003

Ocala / Marion County TPO – Nov 2004
Florida’s Urban
Transportation Coalition
 Formation Considerations

• Flagler County’s travel market
• Governance structure; inclusiveness
• Relationship with FDOT
• Role of Regional Planning Councils
• Necessary financial support
• Funding/programming considerations
• Your objectives
2000 US Census – Expand to
include Lake County?
 Considerations with
 Lake


• Board composition
• Programming considerations
• Familiarity
                 Flagler County MPO Forum
                          January 22, 2010
                               T.J. Fish, AICP
                              Executive Director




    Promoting Regional
Transportation Partnerships
MPO AREA




           56
MPO History
 Following 2000 Census and FDOT urging, work began in
 2003 on interlocal agreement to form MPO for Lake
 County
 Two official Urban Areas (Eustis-Leesburg and Lady
 Lake-Villages)
 Lake County was prepared to propose to its 14
 municipalities that entire county should be in the new
 MPO Area = Urban Areas plus Planning Areas
 FDOT emphasized the need to account for the new Lady
 Lake-Villages Urban Area that stretches into Sumter and
 Marion counties
                                                           57
MPO History (continued)
 It was agreed that all five county
 commissioners from Lake County would serve
 on MPO Governing Board
 Of 14 municipalities, seven exceeded 10,000
 in population (ranging 10-20k in pop.)
 Those seven were given voting membership
 Then discussions began with Sumter
 County…
                                               58
MPO History (continued)
 After much deliberation by Sumter County – and
 consideration of joining the Ocala/Marion TPO – it was
 agreed that Sumter County would join with Lake County
 The two counties already shared Lake-Sumter Community
 College and Lake-Sumter Emergency Management
 Services
 Perception existed by Sumter County leadership that they
 did not want to be “stepchild” to Lake County within MPO
 Agreed to accept MPO formation with caveat that MPO
 Area would be restricted to just the Urban Area of The
 Villages within Sumter County (2 square miles)
                                                            59
MPO History (continued)
 Sumter County was granted one voting
 member from their Board of County
 Commissioners – based on population ratios
 between two counties
 There was no Sumter County municipal
 representation as all five municipalities were
 under 5,000 in population
 Agreements were signed by all Lake County
 local governments, by Sumter County and by
 Gov. Bush by December 2003

                                                  60
MPO History (continued)
 Lake~Sumter MPO Governing Board
 convened for the first time February
 2004
 Small municipalities of Lake County
 wanted voting representation
 Compromise through by-laws was to
 create an At-Large Representative with
 rotating vote among seven smaller
 municipalities
                                          61
MPO Evolution
 Administrative support position hired first and
 Lake County Public Works provided
 professional support
 Executive Director brought on board one year
 later
 2006, first interlocal agreement between MPO
 and Sumter County to strengthen planning
 relationship (Transportation Regional Incentive
 Program – TRIP)
                                                   62
MPO Evolution             (continued)


 2007, agreements among Sumter County,
 Wildwood and MPO for MPO review of
 transportation issues regarding multiple proposed
 Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs)
 2007, interlocal agreement for MPO to perform
 region transportation planning for all of Sumter
 County – precursor to official redesignation of
 MPO Area
 2007, creation of two-county Transportation
 Concurrency Management System
                                                     63
MPO Evolution                (continued)


 2009, MPO Board, with Sumter County’s blessing,
 agreed to pursue Reapportionment/Redesignation of
 the official MPO Area to include all of Sumter County
 Process will lead in 2010 to transmittal to FDOT and to
 Governor’s Office of plan to include all of Sumter
 Resolutions of support adopted by all local
 governments in two-county area (19 municipalities and
 two counties)
 Consensus is that a true two-county MPO creates
 more leverage with agencies to accomplish goals
                                                           64
Challenges
 Perception issues were at first daunting
 After appropriate outreach and effective handling of
 planning, prioritization and funding initiatives, various
 municipalities and Sumter County became much more
 comfortable with MPO process – NO SPLIT VOTES
 Sumter County is within Withlacoochee Regional
 Planning Council, Southwest Florida WMD and D5
 Lake County is within East Central Florida RPC and
 St. John’s River WMD, but fortunately within FDOT D5
 FDOT District 5 = huge benefit; RPCs = manageable
 through coordination; WMDs = inconsequential                65
Conclusions
Attitude is everything – must go into process with
              collaborative expectations

   FDOT funding equity formulas and policies
   typically remove county versus county issues

Must appreciate the power of a multi-county MPO
   in a state populated by single-county MPOs


                                                     66
Conclusions
  A regional approach yields more sustainable
  results than a localized approach = economies
         of scale and collective bargaining

Voting representation need not be as important as
       an inclusive process that involves ALL
   ENTITIES: local governments, transportation
          entities and agency participation

    Being part of the MPO process provides
    advantages much greater than having no
           regional planning process                67
   Flagler County MPO Forum
                   Agenda
Welcome (Charlie Faulkner, Vice Chair, FCARD)
Speaker Introductions (Sans Lassiter, Chair, VCARD)
MPO 101 – Harry Barley, Exec. Dir., MetroPlan
MPO Considerations – Bob Romig, Robert Romig &
Associates
Large MPO Perspectives – Harry Barley, MetroPlan
New MPO Perspectives – TJ Fish, Exec. Dir., Lake-
Sumter MPO
Panel Discussion
Questions of the Panel from the Audience
Closing Remarks (Charlie Faulkner, Vice Chair, FCARD)
Lunch

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:9
posted:11/10/2011
language:English
pages:68