Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-30-2003-5Organizational Review of the Capital Area MPO (CAMPO) Prepared for: North Carolina Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Raleigh, NC Prepared by: Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Ave., CUT100 Tampa, FL 33620 June, 2003 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) in Raleigh, North Carolina identified the need for a study to investigate alternative organizational structures to meet the future transportation planning needs of the residents and businesses of the Raleigh area. The Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) at the University of South Florida was retained to conduct this organizational study. A review of current CAMPO organizational structure and practices was conducted Some key observations aze as follows: - North Carolina state statutes encourage consolidated MPOs and require MPOs that share a designated non-attainment area to adopt a single, unified air quality conformity plan; - The CAMPO organizational structure relies on a series of administrative mechanisms to balance authority between the smaller jurisdictions and the City of ' Raleigh; exercises is the only and "' •' Cazolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)not required to consult the CAMPO Priority Needs List when making programming decisions, except in the case of federal urban allocation funds (STP-DA); - CAMPO has no formal relationship with the neighboring MPO (Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro -DCHC) in Durham or other neighboring non-MPO jurisdictions; - Although the Triangle Regional Model (TRM) is used by CAMPO and DCHC, socioeconomic assumptions are developed independently and inconsistently; and - Although the two MPOs currently undertake air quality activities independently, their individual air quality status is linked because they share the same air shed and attainment status. Additionally, a sample of CAMPO members and stakeholders were asked to identify issues and concerns with the existing CAMPO structure. A number of issues and concerns were identified including the.following: - CAMPO may be unable to meet new air quality standards and coordinate air quality planning with DCHC and neighboring non-MPO jurisdictions; ii - The City of Raleigh retains too much control over the process; - The financial burden is not equitable; - CAMPO staff size, expertise and funding are too limited to achieve CAMPO membership goals and objectives; - There is an inability to bring enough federal and state funding into the area to pay for needed transportation improvements; - Creating a consolidated MPO or coordinating regional transportation planning activities would be difficult due to philosophical differences toward land use and transportation planning; - A consolidated MPO might result in some jurisdictions losing influence in the transportation planning process; - Having two MPOs is an effective regio~l?yha orC - ith ~ f~ of resources and not conducive to king, ile unprovs not ~j / ~ 1 , 'g ""'4 'mil ~~~_~9 and Organiza~onaluctures of six national peer MPOs were reviewe a rovide insi t into altern~ti~"e MPO organizational structures. The peer MPOs fell within two broad categories. The first group operates under similar conditions to those currently experienced by CAMPO (fast growing, have a neighboring MPO, etc.). The second group reflects the potential future condition in the region if a consolidated MPO were formed in the region. One or more of the peer MPOs demonstrated characteristics and practices that that stood out as unique solutions to individual challenges faced by CAMPO. These include: - The Governing Board structure ensures that no single jurisdiction dominates the MPO decision-making process through the following mechanisms: • The apportionment formula does not give any agency or jurisdiction a majority of votes; • There is one vote per Governing Board member; • Governing Board officer terms are limited and rotate among membership; iii • Governing Board officers (Chair and Vice-Chair) represent different member agencies; • A quorum is based on a simple majority; • Abstentions do not count as an affirmative vote; and • The state department of transportation has non-voting membership on the MPO Board. - A diversity of opinion, encouraging more robust debate in the decision-making process, is encouraged through a Governing Board membership structure that: • Allocates multiple single-vote seats to individual member government jurisdictions based on population, and • Includes major modal providers and other stakeholders in either a voting or non-voting capacity. ~. ~'~ ~p'i3 r ._a - Unique co + eesi-st~~- a ~;P~q• ~ ~,, ~"gz,atris fr©~ a citizen's MPO ;destrian Advisory Committee - A group w:~;, . ~ es bicycle related recommendations to the MPO Gove ~~ • Boazd; • Municipal Advisory Committee - Strengthens ties and improves communication between the MPO Board and those jurisdictions not directly represented on the Board; and • Livable Roadways -Reviews plans and makes recommendations on designing "livable" roadways -they make roads more appealing through work on the billboard ordinance, promoting underground utilities; increasing landscaping; creating gateways to communities, etc. - MPO staff are housed in and managed by a third party government agency. - The Governing Boards have established a number of additional committees that provide numerous general benefits to the MPO including: • An opportunity for input from stakeholders and interested citizens on a regular and formal basis, and • In-depth review and discussion of specific issues at a committee level with recommendations forwazded to the Governing Board. iv - The Governing Board members remain cognizant of regional transportation needs. - The Governing Board has established formal relationships with neighboring MPOs and/or non-MPO jurisdictions with the following benefits: • A forum is available to discuss regional transportation topics on a regular basis, and • Lines of communication are maintained throughout a large geographic area. - Inter-MPO relationships • There is a formal conflict-resolution procedure to address conflicts between the TIPS of adjacent MPOs, and • MPOs cooperatively conduct regional projects that are developed within individual UPWPs with a division of workload providing parity rather than by monetary ~ #i~ru~~s by eac ~Oya ~ > ~ S3 °,• ~ T1~e to ~ is ,a`" p . ess~nal~~prta 'on planning ~ t, •'' ecii ted x>; ray a ix t~'~', :er-'-.:: u ^r ` y`~ ~nrim~nlY to - • "' ties -' e O; `"=-~~ • nBi.. `' diversity of staff expertise and staff size allows the to comp ete a ~ety of tasks in-house and to provide knowledgeable project oversight for tasks performed through consultant contracts; and • One MPO staff that serves all three MPOs in a region making regional transportation issues readily apparent at a staff level. - Funding • The MPO maintains control over programming of federal urban allocation funds through a direct allocation from the state or through a strong project priority system, and • All jurisdictions within the MPO contribute monetarily to ;provide funding for transportation planning activities either as the PL match or supplementing federal planning resources. - Air Quality • In non-attainment or maintenance areas, MPOs either have formal regional air quality committees in place or share their emissions budgets and file joint air quality conformity reports, and v • In attainment areas, MPOs have pro-active clean air campaigns in place and public education campaigns for cleaner air. Based on the CAMPO organizational structure and practices review and the peer analysis, several broad policy actions for addressing issues and concerns are suggested along with three optional organizational structures for implementing those broad policy actions. These broad policy actions and optional organizational structures provide insight and guidance for specific actionable decisions that only the CAMPO members and stakeholders can, collectively, make for themselves. The broad policy actions suggested include the following: - Coordinate air quality planning activities with DCHC and neighboring non-MPO jurisdictions and implement a public education campaign for cleaner air. - Modify committee structures to ensure a transportation decision-making process that: ~ ~ ~ ° ~:~+, ,..W , . . -£ .. • • 3'~ ~ ,~ ~ f~c ~ asst ~~i~+~ ~~~ r: ~ ~~$~ IF g"s 1 ~r~;' * ~•~:~ Eucouratres ~di yer , o ~~ rbbu deb I~ .'° .~ ~` Is '' ~ , ed and fair to all' members; • vides benefits to all local government jurisdictions; • Discourages undue influence by a minority of member agencies; and • Requires all members to have a financial stake in the MPO. - Enhance staff capacity and objectivity by: • Increasing staff size and expertise; • Distancing the CAMPO staff from the administrative control of the City of Raleigh or other local jurisdictions; and • Requiring all CAMPO members to participate financially in the support of CAMPO. - Enhance planning and project funding capacity by: • Retaining more funds from existing resources and developing more in-house capability; vi • Negotiating with the NCDOT for a more equitable share of federal planning funds through a revision of the statewide PL funding formula (this will require a coordinated effort with other North Carolina MPOs); • Creating a per capita dues structure that generates adequate funds to pay for the required local match to the federal planning funds and provides a supplemental source of revenue to adequately support the CAMPO transportation planning process; • Negotiating increased CAMPO control over the programmng of STP urban allocation funds with the NCDOT (this may require a coordinated effort with other North Carolina MPOs); and • Negotiating increased CAMPO influence over the programming of other federal project funds with the NCDOT (this may require a coordinated effort with other North Cazolina MPOs). A Formally coordinate regional trans ortation planning activities with DCHC and neighboring nga M~4 jtudiction Eby _ . ' j i,~. ~ ,. a formal ague erit5< oul inc ijtde~' t ~: of members; governing board structure; - A staffing structure; - A meeting schedule and administrative arrangements for holding, staffing and funding meetings including bylaws, a mission statement, agenda structure, etc.; - Member responsibilities and requirements; and - Requirements for coordinating air quality and transportation planning activities (both long- and short-range), including the travel demand model. Negotiating a revision of the statewide PL funding formula with the NCDOT that holds harmless federal planning fund distribution to consolidated MPOs in the event that a consolidated MPO is formed by the jurisdictions in the region (this will require a coordinated effort with other North Carolina MPOs, perhaps through North Carolina Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations--NCAMPO). - Bring the CAMPO relationship with the NCDOT into the "spirit of TEA-21" by: • Negotiating with the NCDOT for a more equitable share of federal planning funds through a revision of the statewide PL funding formula (this will require vii a coordinated effort with other North Carolina MPOs, perhaps through NCAMPO); • Negotiating a revision of the statewide PL funding formula with the NCDOT that holds harmless federal planning fund distribution to consolidated MPOs in the event that a consolidated MPO is formed by the jurisdictions in the region (this will require a coordinated effort with other North Carolina MPOs, perhaps through NCAMPO}; • Negotiating increased CAMPO control over the programming of STP urban allocation funds with the NCDOT (this may require a coordinated effort with other North Cazolina MPOs, perhaps through NCAMPO); • Negotiating increased CAMPO influence over the programming of other federal project funds with the NCDOT (this may require a coordinated effort with other North Carolina MPOs, perhaps through NCAMPO); and • Strengthening NCAMPO to levers a the collective voice of the state's MPOs. NCAMPO~_ , 'pate s ` wi ,e policy :. the NCDOT and otherwise work to ddr the:; colle ~ x c cern 'o " ' o Car Ima s MPOs. O`~li'~Mr zb` fo al'4 ~~ ~' bhs dd~, ough s~4 2 tatute or ergo 1 afire ent an, create~o IU, enisms o~~ T ng its aff' ~.~ E ~ ate: c ' ~~ O.. ~ff~~. irectors sho d~'~ ~ ~e ar ..~ arts 'i'~ is +'~ ~~ ~~meetings. h~~M should cons' a ~'` ~ bh ° g a b~` nt organizational structure with staff and abudget -, ~ ,. The three optional organizational structures suggested include the following: - Option 1: Formal Regional Coordination and Modified CAMPO Organizational Structure This organizational option envisions numerous changes in the internal and external organizational structure of CAMPO, but maintains the independence of the CAMPO process from that of DCHC. • Formal Regional Coordination -This option envisions a formal organization for coordinating transportation and air quality planning activities between CAMPO, DCHC and neighboring non-MPO jurisdictions such as Johnston and Franklin Counties. • Modified MPO Structure -This option also calls for a modification of the existing CAMPO structure that is based on an equitable redistribution of authority in the decision-making process and a more diverse representation on the Governing Board as well as the technical committee. Additionally, neighboring MPO and non-MPO jurisdictions and major modal providers viii would be given the opportunity to participate in the CAMPO process, ideally as members of the TAC and TCC. • Staffing Function -Another element this organizational option calls for includes changes to the CAMPO staffing function including distancing the staff functions from the City of Raleigh and expanding staff expertise and size to meet current and future CAMPO member needs and federal planning requirements. • Additional Committees -Finally, this organizational structure calls for the establishment of additional advisory committees to enhance and broaden the diversity of opinions considered in the CAMPO decision-making process. - Option 2: Formal Regional Coordination, Modified CAMPO Organizational Structure, and Consolidated Regional MPO Staff Function This organizational option envisions all the changes proposed in the first organizational option, but combines the staffing function with that of DCHC while maintaining the Policy indepe ence of the ;CAMP£O process. • Formal Regzon ..::~v .. as en~isi~ 1(1 ~ ~`~ ~ ~~°~ - - -- ---~-~--- ~k mar=. ,~,. Staf~ng"~ Function - In this option, the staffmg funchon~i f :combined for DiCHC and CAMPO and housed at and administered'~b a third party `givernment organization. Ideally, the third party would be an existing organization with which CAMPO and DCHC member jurisdictions aze already familiar and in whose processes they already participate. In the Triangle region, both the TJCOG and the TTA potentially meet that description. The staffmg function would be established through intergovernmental agreement and funded using the same sources of funding as are currently used. • Additional Committees -Same as envisioned in Option 1. - Option 3: Consolidated Regional MPO In this organizational option, the DCHC and CAMPO member jurisdictions would join with neighboring non-MPO jurisdictions to form a single MPO covering amulti-county planning area. • Formal Regional Coordination -Regional coordination becomes an internal MPO function in this organizational option as the MPO boundaries include the entire region. ix • Modified MPO Structure - A brand new organizational structure would need to be developed for the new regional MPO. The organizational structure of the new regional MPO should strive to achieve the same objectives outlined in Organizational Option 1. • Staffing Function -This option calls for a single staffing function for the newly formed regional MPO. The staffing arrangement should be established through the intergovernmental agreement and funded using the same sources of funding as are currently used. • Additional Committees -Finally, this organizational structure also calls for the establishment of additional advisory committees to enhance and broaden the diversity of opinions considered in the regional MPO decision-making process. F__ ~~_ ~~~ ~~ - ~, ~ ,,. -` ~.~ y x