Review of the Transporation Planning Process in the Pittsburgh Metro Area

RSPA/VNTSC-SS-TM392-04

REVIEW OF THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS

IN THE PITTSBURGH METROPOLITAN AREA

March 1993

PROJECT STAFF

William Lyons
Volpe Center Project Manager

Paul Shadle
EG&G Dynatrend

Beth Deysher
Volpe Center

Ronald Jensen-Fisher
FTA

Fred Ducca
FHWA

Frederick Salvucci
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report is the fourth in a series produced for the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) and the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) by the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe
Center), Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation. Volpe Center staff were William
Lyons, Project Manager, Paul Shadle (EG&G Dynatrend), Lead Analyst,
and Beth Deysher. Other contributors included Ronald Jensen-Fisher
of FTA, Fred Ducca of FHWA, and Frederick Salvucci, under contract
with the Center for Transportation Studies, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology. Overall guidance for the planning review, including
production of this report, was provided by the Program Manager,
Deborah Burns of the Office of Planning, FTA.

The federal review team, consisting of staff from FTA Headquarters
and Region III, and FHWA Headquarters, Region 3, the Pennsylvania
Division, and the Volpe Center, participated in the site visit in
Pittsburgh, and reviewed drafts of the report. Donald Gismondi,
Director of the Office of Grants Assistance for FTA Region III
participated on the team as a peer reviewer. Dean Smeins, Chief of
the FHWA Planning Operations Branch, provided valuable comments on
the report. Helpful comments were also provided to a draft report
by the Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission
(SPRPC) and the Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAT). The
assistance of staff from SPRPC, the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation, and PAT throughout the review is also gratefully
acknowledged. Participating state, regional, and local staff are
listed in Appendix 1.

Federal Review Team

Deborah Burns, FTA, HQ, Office of Planning, and Planning Review
Program Manager
Ronald Jensen-Fisher, FTA, HQ, Office of Planning, Senior Analyst
Elaine Burick, FTA, Region III, Senior Transportation
Representative
Alfred Lebeau, FTA, Region III, Senior Transportation Program
Specialist
Donald Gismondi, FTA, Region V, Director, Office of Grants
Assistance
Rick Backlund, FHWA, HQ, Office of Environment and Planning,
Community Planner
Frederick Ducca, FHWA, HQ, Office of Environment and Planning,
Community Planner
Steve Rapley, FHWA, Region 3, Urban Transportation Planner
Robert Hall, FHWA, Pennsylvania Division, Supervisory Community
Planner
Jim Smedley, FHWA, Pennsylvania Division, Transportation Planner
William Lyons, US DOT/Volpe Center, Volpe Center Project Manager
Beth Deysher, US DOT/Volpe Center, Presidential Management Intern
Paul Shadle, US DOT/Volpe Center (EG&G Dynatrend), Senior Technical
Analyst
Frederick Salvucci, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(Consultant)

Table of Contents

Glossary of Acronyms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

I. Summary of Observations, Findings, and Suggestions. . . . . . . . . .1

II. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

A. Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
B. Scope of the Planning Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
C. Objectives of the Planning Review . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
D. Local Transportation Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

III. Organization and Management of the Planning Process . . . . . . . . .9

A. Metropolitan Planning Organization Designation. . . . . . .9
B. MPO Members - Roles and Responsibilities. . . . . . . . . .9
C. Unified Planning Work Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
D. Self-Certification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

IV. Products of the Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

A. Transportation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
B. Transportation Improvement Program. . . . . . . . . . . . 16

V. Elements of the 3-C Transportation Planning
Process and Related Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

A. Evaluation of Impacts of Major Investments. . . . . . . . 19
B. Monitoring, Surveillance and Reporting. . . . . . . . . . 20
C. Ongoing and Corridor Multi-Modal Planning Approach. . . . 21
D. Consideration of Air Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
E. Outreach Efforts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

VI. Tools, Skills and Data Base for Transportation Planning . . . . . . 27

A. Travel Demand Forecasting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
B. Costing Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

VII. Ongoing Transit Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

A. Organizational Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
B. Performance of Existing and Development of New Service. . 32
C. Capital Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
D. Transit Management Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
E. Financial Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
F. Planning for the Americans with Disabilities Act. . . . . 35
G. Outreach Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
H. Planning for a Drug-Free Work Place . . . . . . . . . . . 36
I. Capital and Operating Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Appendices

Appendix 1 Participants in Pittsburgh Review . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Appendix 2 Agenda for Urban Transportation Planning Review
Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Appendix 3 Documentation Provided by Pittsburgh Regional Agencies. . 43 Glossary of Acronyms

AAA - American Automobile Association
AA/DEIS - Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement
ADA - Americans With Disabilities Act
CAAA - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
CBD - Central Business District
CMP - Congestion Management Program
FAUS - Federal Aid Urban System
FHWA - Federal Highway Administration, US Department of
Transportation
FTA - Federal Transit Administration, US Department of
Transportation
HC - Hydrocarbon
HOV - High Occupancy Vehicle
HPMS - Highway Performance Management System
ISTEA - Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
IVHS - Intelligent Vehicle Highway System
LRCP - 1991 Long Range Conformity Plan
LRT - Light Rail Transit
MPO - Metropolitan Planning Organization
NEPA - National Environmental Protection Act
NHS - National Highway System
O & M - Operating and Maintenance
PAT - Port Authority of Allegheny County
PennDER - Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
PennDOT - Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
PHS - Priority Highway System
REMI - Regional Economic Models Incorporated
RTP - 1984 Regional Transportation Plan for Southwestern
Pennsylvania
SIP - State Implementation Plan
SPRPC - Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission
SRAs - Strategic Regional Arterials
TCM - Transportation Control Measure
TIP - Transportation Improvement Program
TMA - Transportation Management Area
TSM - Transportation Systems Management
UPWP - Unified Planning Work Program
UTPP - Urban Transportation Planning Process
UZA - Urbanized Area
VHT - Vehicle Hours Travelled
VMT - Vehicles Miles Travelled
Volpe
Center - John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Research
and Special Projects Administration, US Department of
Transportation I. Summary of Observations, Findings, and Suggestions

This formal, comprehensive review of the planning process in the
Pittsburgh metropolitan area, conducted by Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
headquarters and regional staff, with input from state, regional
and local transportation entities, takes the place of the 1992
planning review of the Pittsburgh metropolitan planning
organization (MPO) which otherwise would be conducted by FHWA field
and FTA regional staff. The Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional
Planning Commission (SPRPC) has been found to be in conformance
with the regulations in 23 CFR Part 450. The MPO conducts a
competently managed and organized continuing, cooperative, and
comprehensive (3C) planning process, produces adequate planning
products, and uses acceptable planning tools. Efforts are being
made to implement a multi-modal planning approach, and the transit
operator is involved in the process.

The federal review team has made a series of observations and
suggestions on each segment of the planning process, highlights of
which are listed below. It is hoped that these findings will help
improve an already competent process. Sections of the following
analysis where each point is discussed in greater detail are noted
in parentheses.

A. Organization and Management of the Pittsburgh Area Planning
Process:

1. Significant transportation planning and decision-making
are now occurring outside the process managed by the
SPRPC. Regional transportation planning should be
coordinated through the SPRPC, and all significant
regional transportation decisions should be made through
the MPO decision-making process. The ISTEA requires
agency coordination and gives MPOs power to guide the
choice of transportation projects. (III.B., III.C.,
IV.B., & VII)

2. To improve representation of the population in the
regional planning process, the SPRPC could give the city
of Pittsburgh and PAT strengthened roles in the planning
process. (III.B.)

3. The UPWP should be broadened to incorporate all
significant transportation planning activities in the
Pittsburgh region, regardless of funding source. The
UPWP should present a single, integrated picture of
regional transportation planning. (III.C.)

4. Without a clear description of planning priorities, it is
difficult to determine if the UPWP addresses the critical
planning activities that have been identified by the
region's planners. The UPWP lists nine functional
planning areas and specific projects for each area. The
projects within each functional area could be ranked or
otherwise characterized to indicate priority. (III.C.)

B. Products of the Planning Process:

1. The review team commends SPRPC for its efforts to work
with a broad range of groups to define a regional
planning vision based on consensus. The previous
comprehensive plan, which is now eight years old, was
recently updated on an interim basis. SPRPC should
continue its plan update efforts and complete a
comprehensive long range transportation plan as soon as
possible. The new plan should reflect recent state and
federal developments, including new funding,
responsibilities imposed by the Clean Air Act Amendments
(CAAA) and the Intermodal Surface Transportation and
Efficiency Act (ISTEA), regional planning issues, and
realistic financial constraints. The plan should reflect
full consideration of multi-modal strategies. In order
to fully inform the decision-making process, the plan
should present a wide range of alternatives and their
respective projected costs and benefits. (IV.A.)

2. The TIP should be clearly derived from and coordinated
with a transportation plan. The TIP should also be
fiscally constrained and thoroughly justify and
prioritize projects. Long-range planning would be
improved if projects were carefully monitored during
implementation through the TIP process. (IV.B.)

C. The 3-C Transportation Planning Process:

1. SPRPC and PAT should evaluate the costs and results of
major transportation investments in the southwest
Pennsylvania region. Such an effort would provide a
means of both determining the relative success of major
investments and better informing future investment
decisions. A formal process for monitoring and reporting
program operations would also improve planning efforts.
(V.A. & V.B.)

2. The needed transportation plan should reflect a multi-
modal approach to planning. For example, the Parkway
West Study indicates a consideration of a variety of
modes rather than an exclusive focus on roads, transit or
innovative route management. Efforts like this could be
expanded elsewhere. Fiscal and environmental impact
assessments of transportation projects could also be
expanded, and planners could thoroughly compare and rank
alternatives before including them in the plan. Multi-
modal initiatives will be bolstered by the flexible
funding and balanced match ratios of the ISTEA. (V.C.)

3. To promote the comprehensiveness of the planning process,
the region is encouraged to develop a land use plan for
SPRPC's jurisdiction that can be integrated with the long
range transportation plan. (V.C.)

4. SPRPC should convene a working group of appropriate
agencies (SPRPC, PAT, PennDOT, PennDER, FHWA, FTA, and
EPA) to promote the development of a realistic SIP and
assign responsibility for tasks related to air quality
improvement. (V.D.)

5. The review team commends SPRPC for developing intermodal
planning committees, supporting the Allegheny Conference
(a group of corporate leaders that advises the planning
process), and holding annual policy retreats. These
outreach activities should be continued and expanded, and
efforts should be made to involve the public more fully
in SPRPC's planning process. (V.E.)

D. Tools for Transportation Planning:

1. Validation of forecasting and planning models should be
documented. Regional models should be re-calibrated to
realistically reflect current circumstances in the
Pittsburgh area. The mode split model should be updated
using appropriate time-of-day transit impedances in order
to allow better predictions of auto occupancy. (VI.A.)

2. SPRPC and the implementing agencies should adopt methods
through which transportation costs will be regularly
monitored, projected and reported to SPRPC. As the
central planning agency, the MPO should maintain current
and thorough cost data to facilitate ongoing observation
and analysis of transportation performance and needs.
(VI.B.)

E. Ongoing Transit Planning:

1. PAT has developed a thorough long-term strategic plan
that is well-coordinated with annual business plans.
(VII.A.)

2. PAT should work more closely with SPRPC on transit
planning and implementation. The planning and
implementing agencies should cooperate and reach
consensus on regional needs and service programs to
promote the provision of coordinated rather than
disjointed transportation services to the Pittsburgh
area. ISTEA requires consultation and cooperation
between agencies in selecting transportation projects.
(VII.A.)

3. Regionally significant, non-federally funded transit
planning projects should be included in the UPWP to
ensure conformance with the joint (FTA and FHWA) planning
regulations. (VII.A.)

4. Regionally significant, non-federally funded transit
capital projects should be included in the TIP.
Inclusion in the TIP is not required, but all projects
will be considered in determining the area's conformity
with the CAAA, suggesting that a full description of
transportation activities may provide a practical
advantage.

5. PAT uses a comprehensive set of performance indicators to
measure progress toward achieving service goals, set
standards, and adjust service. Daily monitoring of
ridership is used effectively as a means of gauging the
quality of existing transit and need for new service.
(VII.B.)

6. PAT prepares thorough capital budgets and needs
assessments. (VII.C.)

7. PAT appears to be effectively monitoring ridership and
conducting safety planning. (VII.D.)

8. PAT successfully maintains the financial health of its
existing services and conducts periodic assessments of
its financial capacity. But given the limited operating
funds, fiscal pressures are severe, leading to fare
increases and service cuts. "Wish lists" should be
prioritized. Cooperative efforts between SPRPC, PAT, and
PennDOT in planning for the operating priorities created
by the CAAA may also allow the development of broader
political support for new increases in operating funds.
(VII.E.)

9. PAT develops thorough capital and operating plans. Given
the capital requirements generated by the ADA and CAAA,
however, the fiscal capacity to advance new priorities is
limited. This capacity could be improved through
cooperative efforts by SPRPC, PAT, and PennDOT to use
flexible ISTEA funds. (VII.J.) II. Introduction

A. Background

On December 3-5, 1991, a team of representatives from Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) Headquarters, Division, and Regional
offices; Federal Transit Administration (FTA) headquarters and
regional offices; and the U.S. Department of Transportation's Volpe
National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center) met with
representatives of the Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning
Commission (SPRPC), which is the Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) for the Pittsburgh region, the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation (PennDOT), and the Port Authority of Allegheny
County (PAT).

Prior to the site visit, the federal team reviewed extensive
documentation on the planning process in the area. The site visit
consisted of structured meetings with staff from regional, local
and State agencies responsible for transportation planning and
implementation. Participants in the review are listed in Appendix
1. The agenda for the meetings is presented in Appendix 2. The
team also conducted follow-up discussions after the meetings.

This report evaluates transportation planning in the Pittsburgh
region and summarizes the results of the review in a series of
findings and suggestions on planning practices.

The State of Pennsylvania and the MPO must self-certify that the
Urban Transportation Planning Process (UTPP) conforms to
regulations set forth in 23 CFR 450, which encompasses transit,
highway and air quality planning. The federal regulations are
designed to ensure that urban areas apply a continuing,
cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process to
develop plans and programs which address identified transportation
needs in the area, and which are consistent with the overall
planned development of the metropolitan area.

Self-certification is intended to grant increased responsibility
for transportation planning to States and MPOs, and is a
prerequisite for receiving federal funds for transportation
projects and planning. Certification statements must be provided
to FHWA and FTA for review with each new or substantially revised
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).

As stated in the preamble to the FHWA/FTA joint planning
regulations published in the June 30, 1983 Federal Register, self-
certification does not relieve FHWA and FTA of their oversight
responsibilities and the obligation to review and evaluate the
planning process. These responsibilities are discharged through
periodic policy and technical committee meeting attendance and
review of related program documentation, including the Unified
Planning Work Program (UPWP), technical reports, the TIP, and grant
progress reports.

Periodic independent reviews are also an appropriate mechanism for
evaluating the planning process. The FHWA and FTA judge the
credibility of the self-certification designation independently to
enable the FTA Regional Administrators/Area Directors and FHWA
Division Administrators to make the statutory findings required
under Section 8(c) of the Urban Mass Transit Act and 23 U.S.C.
Section 134, on behalf of the Secretary of Transportation. This
ensures that the planning process is being carried out by the MPO,
in cooperation with the State and transit operators, in a fashion
consistent with the joint planning regulations.

This formal, comprehensive review of the planning process in the
Pittsburgh metropolitan area, conducted by FHWA and FTA
Headquarters and Regional staff (Appendix 1), with input from
State, regional, and local transportation entities, takes the place
of the 1992 planning review of the Pittsburgh MPO which otherwise
would be conducted by FHWA field and FTA regional staff. SPRPC has
been found to be in conformance with the regulations in 23 CFR Part
450. In addition, the review team has made a series of suggestions
on planning practice, as summarized in section I of this report.

B. Scope of the Planning Review

A purpose of this review was to allow FHWA and FTA to determine how
successfully the UTPP addresses broadly defined regional
transportation needs, and whether the planning process meets the
requirements of the joint planning regulations. Another purpose
was to assess the ability of the existing planning process to meet
broader responsibilities described under the guidelines
implementing the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA), and
proposed in the re-authorization of the surface transportation
legislation. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
of 1991 (ISTEA), which became law after this review was conducted,
includes a requirement for federal certification of the planning
process in metropolitan areas with population over 200,000. It is
expected that this review will assist the Pittsburgh metropolitan
area to prepare for future formal certification reviews.

The team reviewed supporting documentation that included the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality planning; the UPWP; the
1984 long-range Regional Transportation Plan (RTP); the TIP; and
other technical materials related to the UTPP. (Documents reviewed
are listed in Appendix 3.)

The review focused on the transportation and air quality planning
activities of SPRPC, PAT, and PennDOT for the Pittsburgh region.

C. Objectives of the Planning Review

In conducting the planning review, the objectives of FHWA and FTA
are to determine if:

planning activities of SPRPC are conducted in accordance
with FHWA and FTA UTPP regulations, policies, and procedures;

the transportation planning process involves
representation and input on transportation needs from all
levels of government, transit operators, the public, the
private sector, and other interest groups;

the UPWP adequately addresses the elements of the UTPP
and all transportation planning activities in the area;

the transportation planning products, including the TIP
and long-range Transportation Plan, reflect the
identified transportation needs, priorities and funding
resources;

the transportation planning products are complete,
interrelated, and based on the most recent information
available;

the transportation planning products have a multi-modal
perspective; and

requirements and objectives of the CAAA and the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) are incorporated into
transportation planning and development activities.

D. Local Transportation Issues

SPRPC has grouped its transportation needs into seven components:
bridges, capital maintenance, interstates, local roads, the
priority highway system, transit, and economic development
highways. The current UPWP is designed to address these issues and
needs.

To understand the regional context in which transportation planning
is performed in the Pittsburgh Region, the review team and SPRPC
together identified the following major transportation issues
facing the area.

Issue 1 : There has been an overall population decline in the area
from about 2.489 million in 1980 to about 2.322 million
in 1990. Employment is growing in the central city
(Golden Triangle) and Oakland. These trends will shift
travel patterns.

Issue 2 : SPRPC membership is drawn largely from suburban and rural
areas of the six-county region, which tend to support
highways, making it difficult for initiatives attractive
to the central city, such as transit, to compete in the
planning process.

Issue 3 : No regional land use plan exists, and the nature of local
government in Pennsylvania makes it difficult to conduct
large scale planning. Municipalities, making up the
counties, have control over land use, and according to
SPRPC, it lacks the zoning power necessary to enforce a
meaningful plan or guide development.

Issue 4 : The region faces a chronic funding shortfall relative to
proposed transportation projects, estimated by SPRPC at
$6.5 billion by the year 2000. Funding and professional
staff shortages make it difficult for SPRPC to accomplish
federal and other mandates, and have caused a cutback in
technical analysis and modelling.

Issue 5 : All trips have increased substantially over the past
twenty years. Average trip lengths have also increased,
adding to the demands on transportation capacity and the
likelihood of congestion.

Issue 6 : According to PAT, between 1980 and 1990 annual transit
ridership dropped from more than 100,000,000 to about
89,000,000.

Issue 7 : Economically depressed Valley Towns need improved access
to the few rapidly growing centers, and new freeways have
been suggested as a solution to this problem.

Issue 8 : The $1.5 billion Mon Valley expressway demonstration
project, which will connect Pittsburgh and West Virginia,
is politically controversial. City of Pittsburgh and
Allegheny County representatives are working with the
Pennsylvania Turnpike to resolve community and
environmental issues.

Issue 9 : Unlike many other urban areas, Pittsburgh has a freeway
system without circumferential roads. Arterial routes
tend to be radial, carry "freeway-like" trips and
volumes, and need rebuilding. The freeway system forces
traffic through Pittsburgh. However, the lack of
circumferential capacity also tends to reinforce the
strategic location of Pittsburgh.

Issue 10: The uneven terrain in the Pittsburgh area has
necessitated the construction of more than 5,000 bridges,
many of which are now very old and in need of repairs.
II I. Organization and Management of the Planning Process

A. Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Designation

The Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission (SPRPC)
is a public body that was created in October, 1962. The enabling
legislation provides a general framework within which the powers,
responsibilities and membership of the body evolved.

SPRPC was formally designated the Metropolitan Planning Agency for
southwestern Pennsylvania in 1974. Subsequent to the 1983
designation of the Monessen Urbanized Area, SPRPC was designated as
the MPO for that urbanized area (UZA) as well. The long-range
Transportation Plan, TIP, and UPWP for both areas are developed
through a single process by the same SPRPC staff.

B. MPO Members - Roles and Responsibilities

According to SPRPC, the membership of the Commission has been
structured to ensure responsiveness to the interests and needs of
the member governments. The forty-one voting members include
representatives from the six county governments (Allegheny,
Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Washington, and Westmoreland - five
members each), the city of Pittsburgh (five members), PAT (one
member), transit operators in outlying counties (one member), and
three State agencies (PennDOT, the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Regulation (PennDER), and the Governor's Office of
Policy Development) that have physical planning and development
responsibilities affecting the region. Five other representatives
of federal, state and local government agencies participate
actively but do not vote.

Transportation planning and programming are among SPRPC's primary
responsibilities. The Commission conducts a continuing,
cooperative and comprehensive (3C) planning process to ensure the
eligibility of the six-county area to receive federal funds for
needed highway, bridge, transit and airport improvements. Local,
state and federal agencies that have jurisdiction over such
transportation functions work with SPRPC to fulfill this regional
planning obligation. These agencies include the six counties and
city of Pittsburgh, PennDOT, the Federal Highway Administration,
the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal Aviation
Administration and the Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAT),
and the transit authorities of Armstrong, Beaver and Westmoreland
Counties and the Mid Mon Valley as well as the City of Washington.
Within SPRPC, transportation planning is guided by the
Transportation Technical Committee, Transportation Policy
Committee, and Transit Operators' Committee. Given existing levels
of population and economic activity, the city of Pittsburgh and PAT
appear to be under-represented in the SPRPC. Transportation
planning entails three interrelated commitments:

1) to prepare a UPWP;
2) to maintain a relevant areawide transportation
plan; and
3) to perform a short-range transportation improvement
programming function.

According to Article XI of SPRPC's Articles of Agreement, the
Commission is authorized "to act as an entity to promote the plans,
policies and programs developed by SPRPC in a manner and before
legislative bodies as the members of SPRPC deem appropriate."
SPRPC does not appear to guide all regional planning activities.
The large number of governments involved makes it difficult for the
Commission to direct planning. For example, some major projects,
such as the $1.5 billion Mon Valley Highway, originate and are
committed outside of the SPRPC process.

Observations and Suggestions

Consolidation of planning -- Significant transportation planning
and decision-making, such as that for the Mon Valley Highway, are
occurring outside the process managed by the SPRPC. Regional
transportation planning should be coordinated through the SPRPC,
and all significant regional transportation decisions should be
made through the MPO decision-making process. As noted above, the
city of Pittsburgh has only four of thirty-eight SPRPC votes and
PAT does not participate, suggesting that the roles of the city and
transit operators could be strengthened to improve the
representation of the population in the region.

The ISTEA requires agency coordination and gives MPOs new planning
discretion. Newly flexible funding, and equivalent federal match
ratios for highways and transit, are added incentives for
cooperative transportation planning.

C. Unified Planning Work Program

SPRPC's UPWP addresses basic transportation planning needs and is
designed to address emerging issues identified through the various
SPRPC standing committees and funding agencies.

The UPWP seeks to respond to both the USDOT's National
Transportation Policy of 1990, and southwestern Pennsylvania's
regional issues and needs. Regional issues identified in the UPWP
include: economic development planning, transportation
infrastructure financing, enhancement of public transportation,
resolution of highway and bridge deficiencies, improvements to air
transportation facilities, and land use/transportation-related air
quality planning. SPRPC also notes the general need to improve
mobility in the Pittsburgh area through better management of both
existing facilities and transportation demands.

To address these issues, the UPWP outlines a work program with nine
functional areas, each of which has a number of performance
objectives. The functional areas are:

Administration
Transportation Surveillance/Data Base
Economic Development Planning
Transportation Management Strategies and Programming

Transportation Long Range Planning
Transportation Work for PennDOT
Airport Planning
Regional Transit Authorities Activities
Other Funding Requests

For each functional area, the UPWP describes regional, federally-
funded planning projects designed to meet the performance
objectives. Projects are chosen cooperatively by PennDOT and
SPRPC. PennDOT sends a letter to SPRPC identifying broad planning
priorities, and the two agencies subsequently meet to establish the
categories and issues to be addressed through planning. Specific
projects are then prioritized and compiled as the UPWP. The UPWP
document could better indicate priorities and identify which
projects are particularly significant in carrying out the required
planning process. Without clearly indicated priorities, it is
difficult to assess whether staff time and other resources are
being appropriately allocated.

Descriptions are well-written, organized and include project
definitions, purposes and specific objectives. Budgets for fiscal
year 1991-1992 include costs and sources of funds for each project
and the work program as a whole. Work items in the UPWP are
developed by an in-house staff committee, which is guided by SPRPC
members and annual guidance provided by PennDOT. Planning funds
are allocated to SPRPC and PAT based on negotiations between the
two agencies.

Monthly progress reports for each planning activity are prepared
and shared with PennDOT, which submits them to the FHWA.

The UPWP attempts to include all major regional transportation
planning activities, but omits those that are funded solely by
state and local sources.

Observations and Suggestions

The following suggestions are made to improve an already
competently developed UPWP:

1) Non-federally funded UPWP activities -- Non-federally funded
projects were not included in the UPWP. The joint planning
regulations require that all transportation planning
activities be included in the UPWP whether or not they are
federally funded. Because Pittsburgh's UPWP excludes
activities funded solely by state and local sources, it
provides an incomplete picture of planning. The UPWP should
include all regionally significant transportation planning and
management activities in the SPRPC area, regardless of funding
source.

2) Prioritizing planning activities -- Without a clear
description of planning priorities, it is difficult to
determine if the UPWP addresses the critical planning
activities that have been identified by the region's planners.
The projects within each functional area should be ranked or
otherwise characterized to indicate priority.

D. Self-Certification

Self-certification takes place annually in conjunction with the
update and adoption of the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP).
The most recent self-certification was adopted by SPRPC on
September 28, 1992. The Commission reviews its transportation
planning process annually to determine if it is being carried out
in conformance with all applicable federal requirements. For
example, the reviews ensure a continuing, cooperative and
comprehensive planning process; conformance with the Clean Air Act;
involvement of private carriers; solicitation of private
enterprise; and documentation of financial capacity. The criteria
used are those established by the appropriate federal agencies.
IV . Products of the Process

A. Transportation Plan

The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) was last revised in October,
1984. It is reaffirmed annually with the self-certification and
adoption of the TIP, but at eight years old it is inadequate to
meet the current needs of the Pittsburgh region.

The Long-Range Conformity Plan (LRCP), designed to replace the RTP
and briefly described in the Interim Air Quality Conformity
Determination section of the TIP, is the region's current
transportation plan update. It was formally adopted by SPRPC at
the August 26, 1991 Commission meeting, in response to the urgent
need to update the eight year-old content of the RTP. During the
years since the RTP was developed, a number of projects that were
not included in that plan have advanced to various stages of study,
design or construction. The LRCP exists more as a collection of
proposed projects than a single unified document, and was not
provided to the federal review team as a unified document. The
following comments are based solely on the RTP, descriptions of the
LRCP, discussions during the site review, and draft materials
provided by the MPO.

The LRCP is an interim plan update and overlooks some current
issues confronting the Pittsburgh region. SPRPC is currently
developing an updated comprehensive multi-year plan to address
southwestern Pennsylvania's transportation problems. The plan is
being designed by a Policy Committee that consists of a broad-
based, public and private membership including the major regional
public transit operators, PennDOT, the Pennsylvania Turnpike
Authority, the Governor's office, the Mayor of Pittsburgh's office,
the AAA, the Urban League, the Sierra Club, and the Pittsburgh
Pirates, among others. The committee expects to finish its work by
October, 1993. The committee is expected to integrate land use and
transportation planning, though enormous jurisdictional and
political obstacles to such a goal were not discussed by SPRPC.
Regional consolidation is difficult to accomplish. Until the
multi-year comprehensive plan is completed, the LRCP will serve as
the operative plan.

The RTP focused on improving mobility and rehabilitating the
existing transportation system. The highway component, known as
the Priority Highway System (PHS), recommended reconstructing and
upgrading the existing network through a coordinated corridor
improvement program. It thoroughly described the existing highway
system, the proposed PHS, the relationship of roads to transit, a
number of project recommendations, and related land use controls.
The brief transit component of the plan was derived from SPRPC's
1982 Initial Phase Alternatives Analysis. This federally-mandated
study assessed transit options in nine major travel corridors
radiating from the Golden Triangle, and identified corridors in
which major transit investments were justifiable. Based on the
study, the RTP presented and briefly described six transit-related
project recommendations.

Projects included in the interim LRCP are derived from three
sources: 1) the 1984 RTP, with the Priority Highway System (PHS),
which was incorporated in its entirety; 2) projects identified in
the 1991-1994 TIP that are not included in the RTP; and, 3)
projects that appear in Pennsylvania's 1990-2002 Interim Twelve
Year Program. Many of the projects in the third category are now
in various stages of study (planning assessments, needs analyses or
feasibility studies currently being conducted or recently
completed).

According to SPRPC, no element of the LRCP, TIP, or PHS contradicts
the 1982 SIP commitments, and these plans and programs advance a
number of goals, recommendations and projects that are consistent
with the region's 1982 transportation measures and control
policies. Because the federal review team did not have a SIP with
which to compare transportation plans and programs, this assertion
is difficult to confirm.

The RTP addressed major transportation issues, but did not present
them explicitly in the context of land use, urban development and
environmental concerns. SPRPC is taking an initial step toward
responding to this problem by designing a land use allocation model
for its transportation planning and demographic forecasting
process. It will allocate the regional Cycle V (that is, the fifth
iteration or update) forecast of population and employment for the
year 2020 to municipalities and sub-areas (traffic analysis zones)
and will account for jobs and residences that shift to growth
areas. The forecast will be derived from REMI, the Regional
Economic Models Inc. six-county Pittsburgh regional model. When
the model is complete, SPRPC hopes to be able to evaluate the land
use impacts of transportation alternatives.

SPRPC has also studied the issue of growth management, which may be
considered as a strategy to implement the new long-range
transportation plan currently under development. See:
"Transportation Issues, Needs and Strategies for Southwestern
Pennsylvania," pages 14-16; "Growth Management - A Review of Seven
State Systems and the Outlook for Pennsylvania," pages 17-25; and
"Regional Profile 1991 Conference Background Material."

Currently, staging and priorities for the plan are established
outside of SPRPC's metropolitan planning process. Projects are
instead added to the plan primarily through negotiation between
competing interests. This fragmented process prevents rational
analysis of priorities and adoption of implementation programs.
The current comprehensive land use and transportation planning
effort, which anticipates developing the new plan, is intended to
overcome this obstacle by integrating planning efforts. Without an
updated comprehensive regional plan, SPRPC is unlikely to be able
to serve effectively as the forum for transportation-related
decision-making. Documentation of the interim transportation plan
(LRCP) can be found in: "Interim Period Air Quality Conformity
Determination for Southwestern Pennsylvania"; the TIP summary; and
the RTP.

According to SPRPC, the LRCP reflects the most recent population,
employment, travel and congestion estimates, as documented in
"Interim Period Air Quality Conformity Determination for
Southwestern Pennsylvania."

Although its emphasis was on highways and it discussed investments
that exceed available resources, the 1984 RTP did recognize the
limited availability of funds and seek to target transportation
improvements. It identified a network of the most important radial
and circumferential roads in the region and gave priority to these
routes by recommending a series of generally small-scale
improvement projects. Individual projects alone might produce only
modest benefits, but when a series of projects are completed in a
corridor, mobility could be significantly improved.

In contrast, the LRCP is unrestrained by resource limitations. As
described by SPRPC, it is a collection of projects gathered into a
"wish list" designed to meet all of Pittsburgh's transportation
needs. According to SPRPC, it incorporates all of the
recommendations of ongoing transportation studies. In fact, a
Commission report, "Transportation Issues, Needs and Strategies for
Southwestern Pennsylvania," documents a funding shortfall through
the year 2000 of $6.5 billion based on the plan's goals.

Observations and Suggestions

SPRPC is pursuing a competent approach to developing a long-range
transportation plan for the region. The following suggestions are
aimed at improving the plan:

1) Completion of Transportation Plan -- SPRPC should assign a
top priority to completion of an updated, comprehensive
regional transportation plan. The Commission currently
expects to complete its next long-range plan by the Fall of
1993. The updated plan should be designed as a single,
integrated document. In its present form as a compilation of
studies and projects, the LRCP does not and will not provide
comprehensive guidance for Pittsburgh's transportation
planning process. Significant transportation initiatives,
such as the Mon Valley Expressway and the South Beltway, now
originate outside the SPRPC process. An integrated,
comprehensive plan that identifies critical regional issues
and needs is required by ISTEA, and is crucial if SPRPC is to
provide a forum for the decision-making process.

2) Regional issues -- The Commission's description of the LRCP
incorporates regional transportation issues raised in the 1984
RTP, and cites research on the relationships between
transportation and land use, urban development, and
environmental requirements. These issues were not addressed
in the 1984 RTP. The updated plan should add and carefully
describe these regional components.

3) Multi-modal needs -- The updated plan should reflect full
consideration of multi-modal strategies.

4) Financial constraints -- The updated plan should recognize
funding limits. Project proposals should be realistically
evaluated and prioritized on the basis of expected costs and
availability of financing. As noted above, it appears that
the region currently proposes projects for meeting its
transportation needs without adequate accounting for fiscal
constraints. The formation of a broadly-representative
Transportation Plan Finance Committee assigned to develop
fiscal projections is a positive step.

5) Alternatives -- In order to fully inform the decision-making
process, the plan should present a wide range of alternatives
and their projected costs and benefits.

6) Time-frame -- It is not clear from existing documents that the
LRCP is designed to guide transportation policies in the
short- and long-term. SPRPC should include both short- and
long-term management strategies in the updated plan.

7) Planning sequence -- SPRPC used items in the current TIP,
which was formulated in response to the 1984 RTP, as
components of the proposed LRCP. Items included in the TIP,
which has a short-range planning focus, should instead be
determined by the priorities set in the long-range
transportation plan.

B. Transportation Improvement Program

The TIP, including the Annual Element, is prepared by SPRPC's
Transportation Technical Committee and Transit Operators Committee.
The Transportation Technical Committee includes representatives
from the local PennDOT District Offices, PennDOT Central Office,
member planning departments (including the city of Pittsburgh), and
Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAT). The Transit Operators
Committee includes staff from recipients of federal transit
assistance: PAT, Westmoreland County, Beaver County, the Mid Mon
Valley Transit Authorities, and the City of Washington-sponsored
operator, GG&C Bus Company, Inc. Participants recommend transit
and highway improvements, which are summarized in the current TIP.
The city of Pittsburgh's Planning Department is particularly active
in this process, especially during discussions of uses of FAUS
(Federal Aid Urban System) funds. According to SPRPC, policy
questions that arise during staff development of the TIP are
resolved by the Transportation Policy Committee, which is composed
entirely of voting members of SPRPC who are elected officials.
Final approval of the TIP is conducted by the full SPRPC.

The timing of the annual revision of the TIP, including the Annual
Element, is coordinated with the biennial update of the State's
Twelve Year Transportation Program. An effort is made to formulate
compatible programs to achieve an orderly progression of
transportation improvements. In addition, input is received from
SPRPC's Annual Public Meeting on the Transit TIP. Project
justifications are included in the detailed descriptions of
projects, which are provided when projects are included in the
Annual Element.

The TIP includes both transportation demand and system management
strategies. Demand management strategies, including carpools,
flextime, and staggered work hours, are discussed in the TIP but
are not included for funding. System management strategies
actually included for funding are, among others: the massive
Billion Dollar Bridge program, designed to improve traffic flow in
the region, busway extensions, park n' ride expansion, bus
procurement, and rail modernization. Anticipated costs of the
1991-1994 TIP projects are approximately $774 million for highways
and $112 million for transit (including a $34 million grant for
transit garage rehabilitation).

A regional SPRPC planning process is not currently guiding the
choice of projects included in the TIP. Projects are included
based on negotiations between elected officials and implementing
modes. For example, PennDOT and the Pennsylvania Turnpike
Commission make highway fund decisions and transit operators make
transit fund decisions, based on their own criteria and objectives,
and SPRPC's committees incorporate them into the TIP. Because no
updated plan exists, long-term regional criteria and objectives
identified by SPRPC do not necessarily determine the contents of
the TIP.

Annually since 1982, SPRPC has compared the TIP to the SIP to
determine the degree of conformity. The TIP describes the process
as it relates to the five regional transportation control
strategies: Bridge Maintenance and Repair Strategy; Maintenance of
Current Levels of Transit Service; Implementation of Select Control
System Improvements; TOPICS/TSM Projects; and Maintenance of a
Ridesharing Promotion Program. Conformity with the 1990 Clean Air
Act Amendments, according to EPA/USDOT interim guidelines, is
documented in a companion document to the TIP, "Interim Period Air
Quality Conformity Determination for Southwestern Pennsylvania."

The process of project development is tracked in TIP Annual
Elements. Based on a review of documents submitted, physical
progress from project beginning to completion does not appear to be
carefully monitored for highways or transit. The Commission tracks
highway projects only for their use of FAUS-earmarked funds,
regularly monitoring dollars expended as well as the unobligated
balance. A formula for sharing limited FAUS resources, which
SPRPC's Transportation Policy Committee developed in 1983, is
utilized to control allocations within the region between State and
local projects. Unobligated balances are not reported in the TIP.
For transit monitoring, SPRPC maintains Section 9/9B formula funds
tracking tables, which estimate the current status of the formula
funds allotted to each Pittsburgh and Monessen Urbanized Area
recipient since the inception of the Section 9 program. Tables
reflect TIP amendments, grant application submissions and funding
obligations. Estimates of funding availability are derived from
data contained in the TIP.

Transit and highway projects are adopted and added to the TIP at
the same time. However, the draft of the Transit Component is
typically completed one month ahead of the Highway Component
because of its review at SPRPC's Annual Public Meeting for the
Transit TIP and as part of the privatization policy. Other than
urban programs eligible for FAUS funds, proposals are neither
judged according to a set of regional criteria nor prioritized.
The implementors decide what programs they want and add them to the
TIP under the auspices of SPRPC's Transit Operators Committee.
Tables in the TIP indicate that the 1991-1992 Annual Element
programs PAT transit capital projects costing $18.9 million while
anticipating distributions of funds for these projects of only $14
million. Programmed funds exceed endorsed fund distributions. The
TIP does not indicate which projects must therefore be cut,
suggesting that SPRPC overprograms instead of prioritizing and
funding the most pressing needs (See p. 110 of TIP). It is not
clear how SPRPC and implementing agencies monitor the progress of
program implementation.

The private sector is included in the TIP process. SPRPC maintains
a Transit Operators Registry and consults with private transit
operators through its annual meeting on the transit component of
the TIP. The Commission privatization policy directs the public
transit operators to: consider the private sector's capabilities
when planning new and restructured services; assess opportunities
for the private sector to provide existing services; and assure
opportunities for the private sector in the planning and
development of capital projects. Activities directed at promoting
this policy are described in the Appendix to the TIP titled "1990-
1991 Transit Privatization Report."

Observations and Suggestions

SPRPC has had an acceptable process in place for developing the
TIP, but it should be modified to reflect ISTEA requirements. The
Commission made a strong effort to analyze and apply USDOT/EPA
interim guidelines for compliance with the CAAA and direct the
transportation planning process toward meeting compliance
requirements by promoting TCMs. The TIP also demonstrates SPRPC
and the region's commitment to provide accessible transit for
disabled and elderly persons, through the ACCESS paratransit
program, and to the participation of private transit operators in
the transportation planning process (see section VII). SPRPC also
notes in the TIP, as in planning documents, that the Pittsburgh
area faces a substantial shortage of funds for implementing its
transportation improvement programs.

The following suggestions are offered to improve the TIP process:

1) Linking the TIP to a plan -- The TIP should be a strategic
means to implement a comprehensive transportation plan, which
cannot happen until SPRPC has updated its current interim
plan. An updated plan is essential to provide a sound basis
for the adoption of projects listed in the TIP.

2) Project justification -- The basis for including projects in
the TIP should be described. Descriptions of PAT projects in
the Appendix include a "Project Justification" section, but
overall summaries of the highway and transit components in the
body of the TIP do not. Program needs may be obvious to
planners in some cases, but should nonetheless be described to
establish regional significance for a broad readership.

3) Project prioritization -- In order to conform with ISTEA
requirements, TIP projects should be prioritized and within
funding limits. Combined with complete project
justifications, priorities would increase the ability of
decision-makers to reach sound programming decisions.

4) Overprogramming -- SPRPC acknowledges its funding shortfall,
but overprograms the transit portion of the TIP without
ranking its components. To conform with ISTEA, future TIPs
must include financial plans and be fiscally constrained.

5) Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) -- SPRPC is commended
for describing TCMs such as carpools, flextime, high-occupancy
vehicle (HOV) lanes, park and ride lots, and growth management
in the TIP. However, these initiatives should be categorized,
identified by scale and general impacts expected, and
prioritized for implementation.

6) Project monitoring -- Project monitoring should be improved.
The TIP reports sources of funds and actual expenditures, but
does not track the degree to which programmed projects have
been implemented, the progress of construction, or unobligated
funding balances.
V. Elements of the 3-C Transportation Planning Process and
Re lated Activities

A. Evaluation of the Impact of Major Transportation Investments
of the Past Twenty Years

SPRPC does not appear to have formal guidelines on when and how to
evaluate major highway and transit investments. Investments of the
past twenty years have not been analyzed. A limited description of
major transportation investments and demographic trends, without
explanations of the links between the two, was compiled as part of
SPRPC's Annual Conference. (See "Regional Profile-1991 Conference
Background.")

Popular support for past highway and transit projects has reduced
the incentive to assign resources to basic assessments of their
benefits and costs after completion. According to PAT and SPRPC,
popular support for transit arose in response to the improved
service and higher ridership resulting from recent projects.

Observations and Suggestions

Routine evaluations of major investments -- SPRPC and PAT could
evaluate the results of major transportation investments in the
Southwest Pennsylvania region. Such an effort would be a means of
both determining the relative success of major investments and
better informing future investment decisions, particularly
considering the increased authority for flexible multi-modal
investment granted by ISTEA.

Evaluations of major investments could contrast actual and
forecasted impacts of projects on: costs; transit ridership;
automobile use and miles travelled; and other relevant impacts,
including land use and air quality. These analyses would inject a
degree of accountability into the planning process by allowing
testing of both the assumptions made at the time of project
approval related to land use, demographics, and pricing, and the
analytical methods that bred these assumptions.

B. Monitoring, Surveillance and Reporting

SPRPC maintains a variety of data for plan reappraisal.
Surveillance activities include an ongoing traffic count program
that provides trend and calibration data, and the monitoring of
travel parameters necessary to verify and run the transportation
modeling process. Products are intended to provide a regional
database for SPRPC, its member governments and the funding
agencies. The Commission revises and updates the regional database
on an ongoing basis, and maintains the maps, forecasting models,
and needs assessments that are necessary to planning programs
described in the UPWP.

SPRPC monitors the quality and physical characteristics of a sample
of roadways in the region; obtains manual or machine classification
counts on one-third of the sample universe each year; and maintains
a Highway Performance Management System (HPMS) master file
reflecting changes made by the PennDOT Central Office. Staff also
accesses PennDOT's Roadway Management System as needed.

SPRPC has completed four sets of forecasts for the counties and
municipalities of southwestern Pennsylvania, using updated
forecasting techniques with each cycle. During the 1990-91 work
program, the demographic database was updated to reflect the
initial 1990 Census reports and research was conducted on the
relationship between land use and transportation. Findings
provided a conceptual basis for the impending Cycle V forecasts.

A limited home interview survey was conducted in 1990. SPRPC
designed a stratified sampling procedure based on household size
and auto ownership for the six counties and the city of Pittsburgh.
During the Spring and Fall of 1990 a total of 750 survey packets
were mailed to selected households, and 433 completed surveys were
returned (57% return rate).

Sub-area data is collected to monitor travel change. Central
business district (CBD) cordon counts were taken in 1989,
screenline counts were taken at river crossings in 1983-84, and an
external survey was conducted at SPRPC's regional boundaries in
1988-89. Screenline and cordon counts are used to monitor travel
trends, to calibrate and validate travel simulation models for the
region, and to update count-based estimates of regional miles of
travel.

The Commission monitors travel trends in the region to collect the
traffic count information needed to estimate vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) and calibrate the region's travel forecasting model. The
most recent traffic counts were obtained from 93 of the 104 roadway
crossings at the region's cordon line. Over the past three years,
180 truck classification counts were also collected annually at
sites designated by PennDOT within the region. Since 1982, SPRPC
has assisted PennDOT in the Federal Highway Performance Monitoring
Program (HPMS). Annual field observations of the 450 HPMS sample
sections were made and vehicle classification counts were obtained
for these designated sections on a three-year cycle.

SPRPC also maintains the "Development Monitoring 1990+" database,
which tracks projects in the region that affect forecasts of
population, households, employment and land use in 1990 and later.
The database includes such items as: project name, location,
description, cost, status, census tract, traffic zone, etc.

Beyond assessing impacts on post-1990 demographic forecasts, there
is no formal process for reporting the status of plan
implementation. The "Annual Bridge Report" tracks the status of
individual bridges. A special study in 1986 assessed the impact of
a recent freeway opening. The "Allegheny Valley Expressway
Corridor Reconnaissance Study" examined the potential development
pressures that might result from the completion of that highway.

Observations and Suggestions

SPRPC competently monitors and surveys transportation systems in
the Pittsburgh region. The Commission might improve planning by
developing formal processes for reporting progress in implementing
transportation programs and assessing the full impacts of projects.
Political authorities, and the issues that they raise, play a
critical and appropriate role in the planning process, but both
they and the transportation implementing authorities should operate
with benefits of full information provided by careful analysis of
program operations.

C. On-Going and Corridor Multi-Modal Planning Approach

SPRPC's Transportation Strategy Policy Committee has identified the
following seven broad transportation planning components for the
Pittsburgh region: bridges, capital maintenance, interstates, local
roads, the priority highway system, transit, and economic
development highways. (See: "Regional Profile - 1991 Conference
Background", and "Transportation Issues, Needs and Strategies for
Southwestern Pennsylvania.") According to SPRPC, substantial
increases in trips, congestion, and travel times suggest needs in
all surface transportation modes requiring a $10.2 billion
investment over twelve years. Based on funds currently committed,
the region faces a $6.5 billion shortfall in meeting recognized
needs. The Commission believes, perhaps unrealistically, that it
will close the funding gap through a strategy of obtaining "more
transportation funds from a wider range of sources."

SPRPC has demographic projections of total population, households,
group quarter population, average household size and work-place
employment for five industrial categories for the City of
Pittsburgh by ward, and municipalities in the six-county region to
the year 2000. The heart of the planning process is the Mature
Economic Region Land Use Allocation Model (MERLAM), an accounting
system that predicts demographic trends in regional communities
based in part on land availability and accessibility to different
transportation modes. Outputs from MERLAM are used to assess the
impacts of planning alternatives. SPRPC is also in the process of
developing a simple land use allocation model for its
transportation planning and demographic forecasting processes.

According to SPRPC, no comprehensive, long-term land use plan has
been developed for Pittsburgh, and government structure in
Pennsylvania hinders regional planning by granting zoning power to
individual municipalities. SPRPC has neither direct zoning power
nor indirect influence over local zoning authorities, and growth is
generally uncontrolled.

The 1984 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) has been evaluated at
the systems level as part of various corridor and sub-area
projects, but a current, comprehensive transportation plan does not
exist for the purposes of assessment. The RTP lists projected
benefits and costs of projects included in the plan, but does not
compare them to rejected alternatives. According to SPRPC,
projections of transportation demand used for current planning are
based upon the economic, demographic and land use projections as
presented in the 1990 "Regional Profile."

Descriptions of specific program proposals under each of the seven
components listed above suggest a multi-modal planning approach.
The program objectives described include maintenance and
prioritization of roads for different uses; improvement of bus and
light rail transit service; demand and system management strategies
such as flextime, carpools, signalling, HOV and intermodal
coordination; and growth control measures such as regional
coordination and mixed-use zoning. In the 1990 "Transportation
Issues, Needs, and Strategies for Southwestern Pennsylvania," the
Transportation Strategy Policy Committee's suggests that long-term
goals will be prioritized, but it does not compare their potential
impacts and give them ranks. Without a current transportation
plan, however, it is difficult to determine if stated objectives
have been translated into actual projects that provide a
coordinated multi-modal approach to planning in all important
corridors.

SPRPC states that alternative transportation investments were
analyzed during the development of the 1984 RTP, but not for the
1991 LRCP.

Transportation System Management/Congestion Management Strategies
have been given emphasis in corridor level studies performed by
SPRPC with the participation of consultants, including:

Expanded Park-N-Ride Strategies Study, 1991
Parkway East Implementation Plan, 1991
Parkway West Multi-Modal Corridor Study, 1989
Potential Impact of South Hills Light Rail Transit on
Washington County Transit Service, 1985
Initial Phase Transit Analysis, 1982
Allegheny Valley Pilot Corridor TSM Study, 1980

The Parkway East Implementation Study, for example, examines such
strategies as: Incident Management; Park-n-Ride; Ramp Metering;
Transit Options; and minor physical roadway improvements.

If the Parkway West Multi-Modal Corridor Study (which was performed
with the assistance of a consultant, the Maguire Group, and
provided to the reviewers) is a representative example, corridor
program alternatives are thoroughly analyzed based on cost
effectiveness. In general, operating, maintenance and capital
costs are developed by implementing agencies, not the MPO staff.
Studies compare alternatives based on capital costs and travel
performance measures. Operating and maintenance costs are not
emphasized. The Parkway West Study also assessed the environmental
and social impacts of proposed projects, but SPRPC acknowledges
that the thoroughness of such analysis is inconsistent and varies
by study.

Cursory fiscal analysis is carried out to compare the financial
feasibility of program alternatives, but corridor multi-modal
planning is generally not constrained by fiscal conditions. SPRPC
indicates that the new long range transportation plan will attempt
to reconcile funds and projects while seeking new sources of
financing. In early 1991, SPRPC's Transportation Strategy Policy
Committee made a commendable effort to generate funds by
recommending that the Pennsylvania Legislature authorize the
formation of a new Regional Transportation Finance Authority in
southwestern Pennsylvania to levy a gasoline tax (up to 5 cents),
a dedicated sales tax (up to 1 percent), and a personal property
tax on vehicles (up to 4 mils). All levies would be dedicated to
transportation and would finance a ten year, $2 billion
transportation improvement program. The legislation failed to pass
successfully through the legislative budgetary process and such an
authority is unlikely to be created soon. The Commission is also
examining the feasibility of new toll roads. Without any new
sources of revenue, the regional transportation system will have to
reassess options and service expectations.

Observations and Suggestions

SPRPC is, in general, engaging in professional, multi-modal
regional and corridor planning. Goals are determined based on
observed demographic trends, and multi-modal travel management
strategies are emphasized in a number of corridor and subarea
studies. The following suggestions might improve the process and
its products:

1) Multi-modal approach -- The anticipated transportation plan
should reflect a multi-modal approach to planning. For
example, the Parkway West Study indicates a consideration of
a variety of modes rather than an exclusive focus on roads,
transit or innovative route management. Efforts like this
could be expanded elsewhere. Fiscal and environmental impact
assessments of transportation projects could also be expanded,
and planners could thoroughly compare and rank alternatives
before including them in the plan. Multi-modal initiatives
will be bolstered by the flexible funding and balanced match
ratios of the ISTEA.

2) Ranking investment alternatives -- Planners should more
thoroughly compare and rank transportation investment
alternatives. Analyses should compare operating and
maintenance costs as well as capital costs and travel
performance. Existing facilities also deserve attention. For
example, very low fares and high-intensity transit service
might provide benefits with value equal to that of new
investments.

3) Land use planning -- SPRPC should urge its constituent
governments in Southwestern Pennsylvania to support the
development of a comprehensive land use plan that is
integrated with the expected transportation plan. Coordinated
land use and transportation plans would serve as common
reference points, facilitating identification of
transportation needs and evaluation of project designs.

4) Financial plan -- The updated long-range plan should include
a financial component that demonstrates that it can be
implemented in accordance with the requirements of ISTEA.

D. Consideration of Air Quality

Attainment Status

Southwestern Pennsylvania has been designated a moderate non-
attainment area for ozone under the CAAA, and is in attainment for
carbon monoxide. PM-10, or particulate matter, standards are not
met in the City of Clairton and the Boroughs of Glassport, Liberty,
Lincoln and Port Vue, but this is due primarily to stationary coke
oven emissions. In contrast to cities with intense compliance
problems such as Los Angeles, Houston and Chicago, air quality is
not driving the transportation planning process in Pittsburgh.

Compliance Monitoring/Transportation Control Measures (TCMs)

As required by the CAAA, SPRPC prepares an annual conformity
statement in conjunction with its TIP development. The statement
identifies each transportation control measure and evaluates
overall progress toward achieving commitments in the SIP. The most
recent population, employment, travel and congestion figures are
used to estimate emissions. Findings of the conformity analysis
are reported to the Transportation Technical Committee, which
provides an annual opportunity for FTA, FHWA, and EPA (which are
non-voting members of the committee) to review SPRPC's compliance
with the mandate. The findings of the most recent conformity
analysis are contained in the 1991-94 TIP and were confirmed
through the Commission's action of August 26, 1991.

According to SPRPC, it is unclear who is responsible for estimating
emissions levels for the Pittsburgh region. SPRPC conducted the
last emissions inventory and expects that PennDER will request that
it conduct the inventory required by the CAAA, but transportation
agencies perceive the CAAA as a minor issue and give it little
attention. PennDER works more closely with MPOs in areas with
significant non-attainment problems than with SPRPC. Land use and
transportation planning efforts have not been coordinated, and
SPRPC and the State of Pennsylvania do not appear to be moving
together on the development of a new SIP.

SPRPC staff expresses concern that conventional TCMs may have only
a limited impact on emissions, and pursuit of these strategies
might diminish the availability of resources for other projects.
Current planning places emphasis on the implementation of the four
transportation control measures outlined in the 1982 SIP: keeping
bridges open, keeping transit operational, promoting ridesharing,
and improving TOPICS. (See: Appendix 4 "1991-1994 Transportation
Improvement Plan for SPRPC Region (including Monessen Urbanized
Area)".) According to SPRPC, existing TCMs have not been fully
implemented and it is not clear that the new SIP will include new
measures. The UPWP, which was written before any CAAA or ISTEA
guidance was available, did not comprehensively address the air
quality issues and costs confronting the region. Additional
attention should be given to such measures as incident management
on roadways, procurement of clean buses, refueling vapor recovery,
transit fare adjustments, intelligent vehicle highway systems
(IVHS), bicycle and pedestrian access, parking taxes or regulation,
and vehicle inspection and maintenance requirements. PennDOT's
Safety and Mobility Initiative (SAMI) has been aggressively
pursued; however, SAMI strategies to improve travel options for
pedestrians have not been advanced.

Observations and Suggestions

While the EPA has not finalized guidance, the CAAA requires that
air quality planning be improved in order to bring the region into
compliance for ozone emissions. The various agencies involved in
transportation planning must develop means of working cooperatively
to maintain and improve air quality, and set a firm schedule to
attain air quality standards. The ISTEA also includes planning
requirements designed to encourage air quality improvements,
although regulations are not yet final.

The CAAA established an eleven state Northeast Ozone Transport
Region, of which Pennsylvania is a part. Regardless of local
attainment classifications, requirements within the region include
enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance programs (in areas with
populations greater than 100,000) and measures to control vehicle
refueling emissions. The CAAA also requires that moderate ozone
non-attainment areas demonstrate reductions of volatile organic
compound emissions of at least 15% by 1996, and provide for
contingency measures such as TCMs in their 1993 SIP submittals.
The magnitude of this challenge should not be underestimated. The
following suggestions may serve as a starting point for making the
necessary improvements:

1) Interagency efforts -- SPRPC should convene a working group of
appropriate agencies (such as SPRPC, PAT, PennDOT, PennDER,
FHWA, FTA, and EPA) to promote the development of a realistic
SIP and assign responsibility for tasks related to air quality
improvement. The CAAA requires that SIP preparation be
coordinated with the 3C transportation planning process.

2) Resources -- Expanded SPRPC transportation planning required
to address air quality problems in non-attainment areas in and
adjacent to the Pittsburgh region will require that the MPO
develop additional resources. Given the added levels of
funding and increased flexibility provided by ISTEA, the MPO
and state have the resources for an adequate expanded planning
effort to meet the requirements of federal law.

3) Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) -- To conform with the
requirements of the CAAA, the region's transportation plan
must "provide for the expeditious implementation of TCMs."
According to the EPA, this requires TIPs to provide for the
implementation of TCMs that may have been committed but not
yet carried out. Under the expected ISTEA regulations,
transportation planning will be required to consider long-
range measures that regulate land use and promote bicycle and
pedestrian travel as means of reducing pollution-producing
auto use.

4) Transportation Plan -- Because Pittsburgh is an ozone non-
attainment area, its new long-range transportation plan must
demonstrate reductions in annual emissions to bring the area
into compliance. The TIP and UPWP should be viewed as
strategic means to attain the long-range plan, and should
reflect this priority.

E. Outreach Efforts

SPRPC provides access to the transportation planning process for
elected officials and the general public by producing and
disseminating information about transportation issues and planning
efforts. Outreach strategies have included: preparation and
distribution of an Annual Report on the status of transportation
planning, press conferences and press releases, public meetings on
transportation issues held in each of the six counties in the Fall
of 1989, SPRPC appearances before interested groups to present
background on planning activities, rotation of SPRPC meetings to
all constituent counties, and convening a public Annual Meeting on
the Draft Annual Transit Element of the TIP. Direct and early
citizen involvement in the process of developing long-range plans
and the TIP is generally not encouraged, and disadvantaged and
minority communities are not specifically encouraged to
participate.

The Commission supports the Allegheny Conference, a group of
corporate leaders that advises the planning process, and convenes
the Transportation Strategy Policy Committee, designed to gather
"transportation statesmen" from the ranks of the Allegheny
Conference who can interact with political leaders. Another
outreach mechanism is the annual policy retreat, convened away from
Pittsburgh, which brings together SPRPC board members and other
community leaders to identify important regional issues and seek
consensus on future courses of action.

Observations and Suggestions

SPRPC is commended for supporting the Allegheny Conference and
holding annual policy retreats. The Commission should move beyond
providing information to interested citizens and develop formal
procedures for gathering and considering public input throughout
the planning process. ISTEA regulations are expected to require
that all interested parties be given a reasonable opportunity to
comment on plans and TIPs. PAT has a citizens advisory committee;
such a body might contribute positively to SPRPC's efforts.

Outreach would be improved further if the public, including
minority, disadvantaged and other interested communities, were
included early in the planning process at the level of agenda-
setting and decision-making.VI . Tools, Skills and Database For Transportation Planning

A. Travel Demand Forecasting

The traditional four-step process including trip generation, trip
distribution, modal split, and traffic assignment is used to
determine future travel demand. Highway and transit modes are
included and assignments are made for each. High occupancy
vehicles are not currently included in the regional modeling
process.

SPRPC performs the development, refining, and application of the
travel demand forecasting models. The methodologies and results of
the models are provided to other agencies in the region.
Generally, forecasts developed by other agencies use the SPRPC
regional model output as a base. Microcomputers and software
packages such as MINUTP, MERLAM, Lotus 1-2-3, and MAPINFO with
Windows are used mostly for SPRPC's travel demand forecasting
process. Some specialized programs are written in- house. The
forecasting models were last validated in 1990.

SPRPC is currently in the process of constructing a land use model.
The decision was made to construct a model in part because existing
models were considered too cumbersome and could not be used for the
type of application desired in Pittsburgh. One objective of the
model building process is to develop consensus among local
governments as to the most desirable land use patterns, which might
lend support to a land use plan. The variables to be used in the
model will be identified by an expert panel. SPRPC hopes to have
an operating land use model in place by the Fall of 1992.

Household survey data was collected from 1978 to 1980 and in 1990.
Data from the earlier years was used to calibrate the travel demand
models. The 1990 data sample (450 households) was too small to
sharpen major models, but aided in the refinement of the production
models, which appear to replicate current conditions. Attraction
models are based on 1967 survey results.

The mode split model is based upon the 1978-1980 data. It
stratifies trips based on three trip purposes (home-based work,
home-based other, and non-home based) and car ownership (carless
and one plus households). The calibration assumed peak period
transit impedances for all trip purposes, which is different from
traditional treatments that assume work trips in the peak and non-
work in the off-peak. Some of the model coefficients are counter-
intuitive. Analysis of the transit impedances indicates the value
of time for carless households and those with cars is about the
same for home-based work trips. Also for home-based work trips,
carless households have a higher coefficient of in-vehicle transit
time than households with cars, meaning that carless households
show greater elasticity to in-vehicle time. In-vehicle transit
time of home-based other trips for carless households is included
in the impedance calculation. Although values are low, in-vehicle
time is also in the impedance calculation for determining non-home
based transit trips.

Although modal split is performed for only two modes, transit and
auto, the model does include factors for estimating auto occupancy.
The split between park-and-ride and walk to transit is determined
by two separate modelling runs for each access mode and a prorating
of the maximum ridership of the two runs between these access
modes. No treatment of auto access is performed.

On-board transit surveys were conducted in 1982 and 1988, and
transit ridership estimation has been validated against this data.
While documentation of the validation results shows aggregate
comparisons, SPRPC stated that more comparisons have been performed
which have not been documented.

Current parking cost data are maintained by the city. The
connection between this data and that used in the demand models is
unclear. Parking costs are forecasted based on employment density,
which is a traditional approach. This forecasting method was
developed by COMSIS as part of an alternatives analysis study.
Recently, the forecasting of parking costs based on employment
density has been added to SPRPC's demand models. Whether this
procedure has been incorporated into the regional models is
unclear. City policy is to discourage long term parking in the
downtown. Because the city owns a number of parking facilities in
the downtown, it is in a position to bring about this policy.

Observations and Suggestions

The following recommendations are designed to improve the quality
of travel demand forecasting:

1) Documentation of the land use model -- Since the land use
model is being developed locally, and is likely to become
complex, SPRPC should thoroughly document the model, its
assumptions and parameters. This will be particularly
important for future users.

2) Validation of all models -- Validation of all models should be
carefully documented. This documentation is important as
evidence that the models adequately duplicate existing
conditions.

3) Re-calibration of regional models -- SPRPC should collect new
household data for re-calibration of the regional models,
which are based on data as old as 13 years, do not have
capabilities that may be needed by the region, and contain
mode split coefficients that are counter-intuitive. The
region plans to acquire the 1990 Census journey-to-work data,
which should support this effort.

4) Update of mode split model -- The mode split model should be
updated using appropriate time-of-day transit impedances for
trip purposes. SPRPC needs a model that predicts auto
occupancy and more accurately assesses park-and-ride access.
This is particularly important because the region is
considering projects that are oriented to these modes. Work
on the prediction of auto occupancy has been done recently in
Houston, San Francisco, and for the Shirley Highway in
Washington. Work done by COMSIS for park-and-ride access for
the alternatives analysis studies may also be valuable.

B. Costing Methodologies

SPRPC has no specific costing methodologies, but instead relies on
implementing agencies to develop and provide this information. PAT
reports operating and maintenance (O&M) and capital costs in its
Strategic Plan and provides this information to SPRPC on request.
According to PAT, it monitors the costs of all of its service and
projects and conducts cost estimates using cost allocation and
build-up models that are run on mainframe and personal computers.

Planning for a fixed guideway extension along the existing East
Busway, and reconstruction of the Arlington Avenue rail system, are
underway. The assessment of the East Busway is using operating
cost data from PAT, and capital cost data from PAT and PennDOT.
The nearly-completed Arlington Avenue rail project uses actual bid
projects to assess costs.

Observations and Suggestions

SPRPC and the implementing agencies should adopt methods through
which costs will be regularly monitored, projected and reported to
SPRPC. As the regional planning agency, the MPO should maintain
current and thorough cost data in order to enable ongoing
observation and analysis of transportation performance and needs.VI I. Ongoing Transit Planning

A. Organizational Issues

The Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAT) develops and adopts a
comprehensive Strategic Plan that describes agency goals every 3-5
years. The current plan was drafted with the assistance of a
strategic planner from the private sector and adopted in 1987, and
an updated version is now being developed directly by PAT staff.
A Business Plan of programs designed to carry out the objectives of
the Strategic Plan is prepared annually. The Business Plan also
contains performance indicators that enable PAT to track its
progress in achieving goals.

PAT plans for services in a number of modes. The authority
operates standard bus, light rail, and inclined plane modes, and
contracts out the operation of its ACCESS paratransit system and
the experimental implementation of a sub-mode called LINK, a
suburban feeder bus service. Services also include the South and
East busways, HOV lanes in the medians of I-579 and I-279 North,
and exclusive contra-flow bus lanes in downtown Pittsburgh. In
addition, PAT monitors and authorizes private carriers that operate
their own services, including a CBD-fringe shuttle, a neighborhood
shuttle serving Pittsburgh's Oakland district, charter service, and
scheduled service to the airport.

PAT participates in PennDOT's Safety and Mobility Initiative, which
is developing transportation system management and congestion
management strategies, and is a member of the Pittsburgh Modal
Integration Committee, which brings federal, state and local
planning and implementing agencies together to explore multi-modal
management. The authority also contributes to regional study
committees, such as SPRPC's park-n-ride committee and Parkway East
study initiative, Allegheny County's rail corridor study, and the
city of Pittsburgh's Baum/Centre corridor study. According to PAT
officials, the authority will support any measures that induce
people to try alternatives to automobile travel, and it actively
promotes transportation management associations in the Pittsburgh
region. Two associations, one at the airport, are currently trying
to develop transportation strategies, and PAT has pledged to
support any "transit niche" that results from this planning.

In general, PAT policy emphasis areas, such as service quality
improvement, financial stability, and facilities maintenance
conform well to SPRPC's transit plans and programs. The agencies
cooperated on the development of the East Busway and the promotion
of ridesharing, and anticipate that they will work closely under
the flexible funding guidelines described in ISTEA. PAT also uses
UPWP funds to support its strategic planning efforts. However, the
MPO's emphasis on highways and PAT's interest in implementing
transit changes can weaken formal links between the two agencies.
For example, SPRPC's desire to allow HOV use of busways has been
resisted by PAT, which controlled their development. The lack of
formal links requiring and guiding interaction may discourage the
coordinated development of transportation services. Cooperation
may be stronger in principle than in practice.

PAT's nine priority corridors are part of the 1984 Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP). However, only federally-funded transit
projects appear in the UPWP and the TIP. A number of projects
listed in the current Business Plan (1992) are omitted. For
example, the Steel Plaza Station development, Monongahela Incline
rehabilitation, and light rail station improvements, all of which
might have impact on regional transportation, do not appear in the
UPWP.

Observations and Suggestions

PAT is commended for developing a comprehensive, long-term
strategic plan and implementing it through specific annual business
plans. Broad strategies are successfully linked to annual tasks.
The following suggestions are intended to improve the organization
of the transit planning process:

1) Coordination of planning with SPRPC -- PAT could seek better
coordination and consensus with SPRPC. Effective cooperation
might resolve differences on the design and use of projects,
such as the busways, before they are developed. It might also
encourage service that is better oriented to regional needs.
As noted in Section III.B., the ISTEA requires that all
projects in TMAs, except those on the NHS or funded under the
Bridge and Interstate Maintenance programs, be selected by the
MPO from the TIP "in consultation" with the state and transit
operator. The state and transit operator choose projects in
the excepted categories "in cooperation" with the MPO. MPOs
and operators are urged to develop an "agreed to list of
projects" and formal project selection procedures. A transit
operator must receive formal concurrence from an MPO for all
project selections until formal joint project selection
procedures following the above guidelines are developed.

2) Reporting of transit projects -- Non-federally funded transit
projects should be included in the UPWP and the TIP. The
joint (FTA and FHWA) planning regulations require that all
transportation planning activities be included in the UPWP,
regardless of funding source. Furthermore, the current CAAA
guidelines indicate that the collective impact of non-
federally funded projects will be considered in determining
the compliance of transportation plans and TIPs with respect
to emissions milestones. Non-federal projects are likely to
have impact on overall air quality attainment, suggesting that
they should be reported in the TIP as a practical measure.

B. Performance of Existing Service and Development of New Service

PAT relies on fifty-five quarterly and twelve monthly numeric
indicators to monitor the performance of transit services.
Indicators are developed by PAT's Planning Department with input
from all of the authority's functional areas, and they are reviewed
with management staff and the Board of Directors. Indicators,
which are defined and reported in the annual Business Plan, monitor
service, safety and maintenance effectiveness, financial and
ridership performance, and employee utilization.

Service standards are reviewed and revised annually, and they serve
as the basis for service adjustments that occur four times each
year. The indicators serve as "flags" that suggest what revisions
should be made to service on bus and light rail lines. If services
to a particular area must be substantially restructured, PAT
convenes an internal committee to develop changes. New plans are
then discussed with community leaders, riders, and the Board of
Directors.

PAT's Planning Department gathers demographic data from secondary
sources such as SPRPC, city and county planning departments, the
Pennsylvania state data center, and the University of Pittsburgh
School of Social Research. Data on operations, service and
ridership, used to calculate performance indicators, are collected
and compiled by the authority's Transit Operations Division and the
Schedules and Service Development Department. Ridership is
monitored seven days a week. The Marketing Department conducts
surveys of rider and non-rider attitudes countywide approximately
every three years, and on specific routes when changes in service
are anticipated.

To determine route operating costs, PAT uses models based on a cost
allocation plan. These models were last validated in fiscal year
1990. Ridership for corridor studies is estimated by the regional
ridership models, and for route-level studies by comparison to like
services; costs are allocated to vehicle miles and hours, number
of vehicles deployed, and other service parameters. Ten expense
details are also proportionately added to routes, including
capital, technical, planning, and general administration. The
required fare recovery ratio is set by state legislation, and is
currently 46%. Fares are raised at PAT's discretion, and no
estimate is made of fare effects on VMT. PAT reports that it has
continued to achieve the 46% fare recovery ratio through
combinations of service reductions and fare increases.

Observations and Suggestions

PAT is commended for using a comprehensive set of performance
indicators to measure progress toward achieving service goals, set
standards, and adjust service. The clear linkages between the
strategic and business plans and the performance measures is
particularly innovative. Daily monitoring of ridership is also a
good means of gauging the quality of existing transit and need for
new service.

C. Transit Structure, Vehicle and Equipment Planning

PAT prepares a combined capital and operating budget in conjunction
with development of the annual Business Plan portion of the
Strategic Plan. Capital budgeting is guided by a Capital Technical
Committee and a Capital Steering Committee. According to PAT, a
capital needs study was completed in 1987 and is being updated.
Replacement and rehabilitation program requests for vehicles,
equipment and facilities are assessed as part of PAT's Capital
Needs Assessment, which is performed biennially. Performance of
these programs is reviewed quarterly by the Capital committees.
Capital planning is noted in the UPWP and programs are listed in
the TIP.

Existing facilities, rolling stock and equipment are evaluated for
their consistency with PAT's service, efficiency and effectiveness
objectives during the annual capital and operating budget planning
process. The Business Plan assesses facility, rolling stock, and
equipment improvement programs with regard to the authority's goals
and objectives. Condition surveys are performed every year during
budget preparation. The biennial Capital Needs Assessment
considers life-cycles of assets when developing capital programs.

Observations and Suggestions

PAT prepares thorough annual capital budgets and biennial capital
needs assessments, which provide a sound basis for planning.

D. Transit Management Analysis

Service productivity and efficiency planning is based on daily
passenger counts, which are monitored to evaluate route- and trip-
specific ridership, usually per vehicle hour. According to PAT,
100% of ridership is counted. This information is used to
determine service standards, which form the guidelines for routing
and scheduling. Service standards are continuously assessed and
adjusted. The UPWP notes PAT's plans to improve its service data
base content and management, develop a transit improvement program
for the next TIP, and analyze transit options in critical
corridors.

Safety planning goes beyond simply recording accidents. Employee
accidents are recorded on PAT forms for recordkeeping and on state
of Pennsylvania forms for worker compensation. Vehicle and
passenger accidents are tracked using ANSI D-15. Monitoring
information is used to develop annual objectives and long-range
plans to reduce accidents. PAT also has an accident investigation
review committee, conducts regular operator safety reviews, runs a
safe driving training programs, and holds public meetings to
discuss safety issues.

Observations and Suggestions

PAT appears to be effectively monitoring ridership, and using the
results to adjust transit routes and schedules. The agency also
conducts thorough safety planning.

E. Financial Planning

A preliminary financial capability analysis of fixed guideways was
performed in 1988. Financial capability analysis was performed in
1990 as part of the Airport Busway Transitional Analysis, and will
be conducted as part of the Airport Busway Alternatives
Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (AA/DEIS).

PAT successfully built and operates the South Busway, Martin Luther
King, Jr. East Busway, and the Stage 1 South Hills LRT line. The
1988 preliminary financial capacity analysis determined that
projected financial requirements of the authority's fixed guideway
improvement programs are consistent with projects that have already
been funded, and within the financing ability of PAT and its
funding partners. The Transitional Analysis verified the financial
ability to build and operate the Phase I Airport Busway. This
conclusion will be reviewed as part of the Airport Busway AA/DEIS.
Financial capacity is also included in the Authority's other
corridor planning efforts, on the Stage II South Hills LRT, the
Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway Extension, and the Spine Line.

PAT has a ten-year capital "wish list" that would cost $10 billion,
far more than available through either state dedicated or federal
funds. As noted earlier, the transit portion of the TIP has been
substantially overprogrammed without the benefit of priorities that
might enable decision-makers to choose between projects. The CAAA
may require that financial priorities be altered to meet air
quality mandates.

Observations and Suggestions

PAT successfully maintains the financial health of its existing
services, and correctly conducts periodic assessments of its
financial capacity. But given the limited operating funds, fiscal
pressures are severe, leading to fare increases and service cuts.
"Wish lists" should be prioritized according to levels of
anticipated funds. Cooperative efforts between SPRPC, PAT, and
PennDOT in planning for the operating priorities created by the
CAAA may also allow the development of broader political support
for new increases in operating funds.

F. Planning for the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

PAT is developing paratransit and key LRT station accessibility
plans that will comply with the ADA. The authority currently
provides paratransit service, called ACCESS, throughout Allegheny
County for those unable to board standard vehicles. This service
already meets or exceeds many ADA requirements. Eligibility
criteria for this service will be expanded to include persons with
visual and cognitive disabilities.

One-hundred and fifty of nine hundred buses on one-hundred and
seventy routes are lift-equipped. Eleven bus routes, chosen by the
disabled community in the course of four public meetings, are
entirely accessible. All new equipment will be accessible.

Observations and Suggestions

PAT is commended for early efforts to provide accessibility, and
for involving the disabled community in planning bus service.

G. Overall Outreach Activities and Related Considerations in the
Urban Transit Planning Process

PAT works with the Allegheny County Transit Council, a formal group
of citizen volunteers that represents transit riders. The Council
meets on a monthly basis or more often as necessary to review
information on transit service, finances and planning efforts. PAT
conducts rider and countywide opinion surveys and convenes focus
groups.

PAT has involved the public in planning efforts through meetings
designed to gather public comments and analysis of projects such as
busway extensions and the Spine Line Study. Minority and female-
owned businesses have been encouraged to participate in the ACCESS
paratransit service, and many have become involved. PAT tried to
contract out a local shuttle service in an inaccessible area of
Allegheny County to a private carrier, but the transit workers
union successfully challenged the initiative in court. The
authority has appealed this ruling, and continues to maintain an
active list of potential private providers.

H. Planning Activities for a Drug-Free Work Place

The Port Authority has undertaken two primary efforts to support a
drug-free workplace. The first, called the Employee Assistance
Program, works confidentially to assist employees with a variety of
personal challenges including issues related to drug dependency.
The second initiative is a drug testing program for employees in
safety-sensitive positions, which also trains supervisors to
recognize signs of drug use in the workplace.

I. Transit Capital and Operating Plans and Programs

PAT develops transit operating plans and capital programs involving
rehabilitation of existing facilities. Plans and programs
involving the expansion of fixed guideway facilities are designed
in cooperation with SPRPC. Initiatives are generated by the
monitoring and planning process described above in sections VI. A,
B, and C. General planning guidelines for transit are described in
the UPWP. Project justifications, expected costs, and sources of
funds are summarized in the TIP. PAT's general manager strongly
supports studies of impacts both before and after implementation of
major investments, though such evaluation is currently done on a
limited basis.

Observations and Suggestions

PAT develops thorough capital and operating plans. The authority
is commended for pursuing program evaluation, and should do more to
emphasize these efforts. Given the requirements generated by the
ADA and CAAA, however, the fiscal capacity to advance new
priorities is limited. This capacity could be improved through
cooperative efforts by SPRPC, PAT, and PennDOT to use flexible
ISTEA funds.AP PENDIX 1

Pa rticipants in Pittsburgh Review

Federal Transit Administration (FTA)

Headquarters:
Deborah Burns, Project Manager
Ronald Jensen-Fisher, Senior Community Planner

Region III:
Elaine Burick, Senior Transportation Representative
Alfred Lebeau, Senior Transportation Program Specialist

Region V (Peer Review):
Donald Gismondi, Director, Office of Grants Management

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Headquarters:
Rick Backlund, Community Planner
Frederick Ducca, Community Planner

Region 3:
Steve Rapley, Urban Transportation Planner

Pennsylvania Division:
Robert Hall, Supervisory Community Planner
Jim Smedley, Transportation Planner

U.S. Department of Transportation/Volpe National Transportation
Systems Center

William Lyons, Volpe Center Project Manager
Beth Deysher, Presidential Management Intern
Frederick Salvucci, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Consultant)

Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission

Robert Kochanowski, Executive Director
Charles DiPietro, Transportation Planning Director
Wade Fox, Manager of Information Services
Chuck Imbrogno, Transportation Project Manager
Ted Treadway, Project ManagerAP PENDIX 1, Cont.

Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAT)

Marilyn Skolnick, PAT Board
William Millar, Executive Director
Allen Biehler, Director of Planning and Business Development
Jim Barthen, Manager of Government Affairs
Richard Feder, Manager of Planning
Gloria Hahn, Legislative Analyst
David Veights, Transit Planner
Cathy Williams, Transit Planner
David Wohlwill, Transit Planner

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

James Byers, Air Quality Coordinator
AP PENDIX 2

Ag enda for Urban Transportation Planning Review Meeting

December 3-5, 1991

Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission
The Waterfront
200 First Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1573

Tuesday, December 3

11:00 - 12:30 Review Team meeting

12:30 - 1:00 Elaine Burick Welcome and introductory remarks.
FTA, Region III

Deborah Burns Objectives for planning review.
FTA, Headquarters

Steve Rapley
FHWA, Region 3

Robert Kochanowski Introductory remarks.
SPRPC
Introduction of participants.

1:00 - 1:15 Bill Lyons Overview of meeting and schedule.
USDOT/Volpe Center
Discussion of urban transportation
planning process (Roman numerals
following topics below refer to
attached questionnaire, which
provides discussion questions).

Format for general sessions -
topic overview from SPRPC with
discussion led by review team
members.

How the process works in the

Pittsburgh Region.

Local Transportation Issues
(I.B)

1:15 - 1:45 SPRPC Presentation

1:45 - 2:15 Elaine Burick, FTA, III Discussion
Robert Hall, FHWA, PA-Div

APPENDIX 2, Cont.

Organization and management of
the process -- Agencies' roles
and responsibilities (II).

2:15 - 2:45 SPRPC Presentation

2:45 - 3:15 Alfred Lebeau, FTA, III Discussion
Steve Rapley, FHWA, 3

Products of the process (III).

3:15 - 3:45 SPRPC Presentation

3:45 - 4:45 Don Gismondi, FTA, V Discussion
Robert Hall, FHWA, PA-Div

Wednesday, December 4

How the process works in the

Pittsburgh Region (continued).

Elements of 3-C process
(multi-modal dimension) (IV).

9:00 - 9:30 SPRPC Presentation

9:30 - 10:30 Jim Smedley, FHWA, PA-Div Discussion
Bill Lyons, USDOT/Volpe Center

Approach to air quality (Clean
Air Act) (IV.D).

10:30 - 11:00 SPRPC Presentation

11:00 - 12:00 Steve Rapley, FHWA, 3 Discussion
Fred Salvucci, Volpe Center/MIT

12:00 - 1:00 Lunch APPENDIX 2, Cont.

1:00 - 4:30 Parallel sessions.

Breakout session at SPRPC

Format for general sessions -
topic overview from SPRPC with
discussion led by review team
members.

Ronald Jensen-Fisher, FTA Transportation planning
techniques
Fred Ducca, FHWA (V).

Travel demand forecasting.

Costing methodologies.

General session at PAT

Format for general sessions -
topic overview from PAT with
discussion led by review team
members.

Bill Lyons, USDOT/Volpe Center On-going transit
planning (VI).

Organizational issues -
strategic planning (VI.A).

Service performance and
development (VI.B).

Structure, vehicle, and
equipment planning (VI.C).

Transit management analysis
(VI.D).

Financial planning (VI.E).

Americans with Disabilities Act
(VI.F).

Outreach activities (citizen
and minority participation,
DBE, private sector
involvement) (VI.G).

Planning for a Drug-Free Work
Place (VI.H).

Transit Capital and Operating
Plans and Programs (VI.J).

APPENDIX 2, Cont.

Thursday, December 5

8:30 - 11:00 Complete outstanding items.

11:00 - 12:00 Review Team meeting - Findings

12:00 - 1:00 Lunch

1:00 - 4:00 Elaine Burick, FTA, III Meeting summary -- Findings
and
Steve Rapley, FHWA, 3 Follow-up Actions (VII).

Regional concerns.

Next steps.
APPENDIX 3

Documentation Provided By Pittsburgh Regional Agencies

Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission

Unified Planning Work Program - "1991-92 Unified Planning Work Program for SPRPC
Region (including Monessen Urbanized Area)"

Transportation Improvement Program - "1991-1994 Transportation Improvement
Program for SPRPC Region (including Monessen Urbanized Area)"

Long Range Transportation Plan - "Regional Transportation Plan, Adopted October
29, 1984"

Emissions Inventory - "Interim Period Air Quality Conformity Determination for
Southwestern Pennsylvania: Companion Document to the 1991-1994 TIP/Annual
Element"

"Transit Financial Capacity: Appendix to the 1991-1994 TIP/Annual Element,
September, 1991"

"1990-1991 Transit Privatization Report: Appendix to the 1991-1994 TIP/Annual
Element"

"Annual Report on Southwestern Pennsylvania's Bridge Conditions, August, 1991"

"Population, Households, Employment, 1980, 1990, 2000"

"Regional Profile"

"Transportation Issues, Needs and Strategies for Southwestern Pennsylvania"

"A Reference Manual for Members of the SPRPC"

Port Authority of Allegheny County

"1987-1991 Strategic Plan"

"Business Plan & Performance Indicators Fiscal Year 1992"

"Draft Operating and Maintenance Costing Methodology Report: Spine Line Corridor
Alternatives Analysis/DEIS, November, 1990"

"The Spine Line: Spine Line Preliminary Findings Now Available, March, 1991"

"Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway Extension Study"

"Port Authority of Allegheny County Busway Expansion Program, April, 1991"

"Phase I Airport Busway Corridor AA/Deis, September, 1991"

"Status Report on Parkway East Study, June 5, 1991"

"Port Authority of Allegheny County Drug and Alcohol Abuse Program, November
5, 1990"

(pit.html)