|
Moving Urban America: Proceedings of a Conference, May 92, Transportation Research Board
Special Report 237 MOVING URBAN AMERICA TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD National Research Council 1993 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Chairman: A. RAY CHAMBERLAIN, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver Vice Chairman: JOSEPH M. SUSSMAN, JR East Professor of Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge Executive Director: THOMAS B. DEEN, Transportation Research Board MIKE ACOTT, President, National Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham, Maryland (ex officio) ROY A. ALLEN, Vice President, Research and Test Department, Association of American Railroads, Washington, D.C. (ex officio) RICHARD E. BOWEN, Acting Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) E. DEAN CARLSON, Executive Director, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) JOSEPH M. DELBALZO, Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) FRANCIS B. FRANCOIS, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C. (ex officio) JACK R. GILSTRAP, Executive Vice President, American Public Transit Association, Washington, D.C. (ex officio) THOMAS H. HANNA, President and CEO, American Automobile Manufacturers Association, Detroit, Michigan (ex officio) S. MARK LINDSEY, Acting Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) ROBERT H. Mc S, Acting Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) ROSE A. McMURRAY, Acting Administrator, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) HOWARD M. SMOLKIN, Acting Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio) LT. GEN. ARTHUR E. WILLIAMS, Chief of Engineers and Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. (ex officio) KIRK BROWN, Secretary, Illinois Department of Transportation, Springfield DAVID BURWELL, President, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, Washington, D.C. L. G. (GARY) BYRD, Consultant, Alexandria, Virginia L. STANLEY CRANE, former Chairman and CEO of Consolidated Rail Corporation, Gladwyne, Pennsylvania RICHARD K. DAVIDSON, Chairman and CEO, Union Pacific Railroad, Omaha, Nebraska JAMES C. DELONG, Director of Aviation, Philadelphia International Airport, Pennsylvania JERRY L. DEPOY, Vice President, Properties and Facilities, USAir, Arlington, Virginia ROBERT KOCHANOWSKI, Executive Director, Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission, Pittsburgh LESTER P. LAMM, President, Highway Users Federation, Washington, D.C. LILLIAN C. LIBURDI, Director, Port Department, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, New York City ADOLF D. MAY, JR., Professor and Vice Chair, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley VALLIAM W. MILLAR, Executive Director, Port Authority of Allegheny County, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Past Chairman, 1992) CHARLES P. O'LEARY, JR., Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Transportation, Concord NEIL PETERSON, Executive Director, Los Angeles County Transportation Commission, Los Angeles DARREL RENSINK, Director, Iowa Department of Transportation, Ames DELLA M. ROY, Professor of Materials Science, Pennsylvania State University, Universitv Park JOHN R. TABB, Director and CAO, Mississippi Department of Transportation, Jackson JAMES W. VAN LOBEN SELS, Director, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento C. MICHAEL WALTON, Paul D. and Betty Robertson Meek Centennial Professor and Chairman, Civil Engineering Department, University of Texas at Austin (Past Chairman, 1991) FRANKLIN E. WHITE, Commissioner, New York State Department of Transportation, Albany JULIAN WOLPERT, Henry G. Bryant Professor of Geography, Public Affairs and Urban Planning, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University ROBERT A. YOUNG 111, President, ABF Freight Systems, Inc., Fort Smith, Arkansas Special Report 237 MOVING URBAN AMERICA Proceedings of a Conference Charlotte, North Carolina May 1992 Conducted by Transportation Research Board Sponsored by U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS WASHINGTON, D.C. 1993 Transportation Research Board Special Report 237 Subscriber Category I planning, administration, and environment Transportation Research Board publications are available by ordering directly from TRB. They may also be obtained on a regular basis through organizational or individual affiliation with TRB; affiliates or library subscribers are eligible for substantial discounts. For further information, write to the Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20418. Copyright 1993 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to the procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Moving urban America: proceedings of a conference [held at the] Adam's Mark Hotel, Charlotte North Carolina, May 6-8, 1992 conducted by Transportation Research Board. p. cm. - (Special report ISSN 0360-859X; 237) "Sponsored by U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration." Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-309-05405-2 1. Urban transportation-United States-Planning-Congresses. 2. Urban transportation-United States-Congresses. I. National Research Council (U.S.). Transportation Research Board. II. United States. Federal Highway Administration. III. United States. Federal Transit Administration. IV. Series: Special report (National Research Council (U.S.). Transportation Research Board) 237. HE308.M68 1993 92-35101 388.4'0973--dc20 CIP Cover design: Karen L. White Steering Committee for Conference on Moving Urban America LAWRENCE D. DAHMS, Cochair, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, California JACK KINSTLINGER, Cochair, KCI Technologies, Inc., Baltimore, Maryland HARVEY R. ATCHISON, Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver SHARON D. BANKS, Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, Oakland, California SALVATORE J. BELLOMO, Bellomo-McGee, Inc., Vienna, Virginia SARAH C. CAMPBELL, Surface Transportation Policy Project, Washington, D.C. CHESTER E. COLBY, Metro-Dade County Transportation Authority, Miami, Florida BRIGID HYNES-CHERIN, San Francisco County Transportation Authority CHRISTINE M. JOHNSON, New Jersey Department of Transportation, Trenton RONALD F. KIRBY, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, D.C. GEORGE T. LATHROP, City of Charlotte Department of Transportation, Charlotte, North Carolina BRUCE D. McDOWELL, U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Washington, D.C. DORN C. McGRATH, JR., George Washington University, Washington, D.C. ROBERT E. PAASWELL, University Transportation Research Center, City College of New York, New York HENRY L. PEYREBRUNE, New York State Department of Transportation, Albany JOHN P. POORMAN, Capital District Transportation Committee, Albany, New York HARRY A. REED, Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix ROGER L. SCHRANTZ, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Madison DAVID F. SCHULZ, Northwestern University Infrastructure Technology Institute, Evanston, Illinois JOEL F. STONE, JR., Atlanta Regional Commission, Atlanta, Georgia ALAN C. WULKAN, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., Tempe, Arizona Liaison Representatives CYNTHIA J. BURBANK, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation DAVID CLAWSON, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C. SHELDON M. EDNER, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation KEVIN E. HEANUE, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation GLORIA J. JEFF, Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing BARNA JUHASZ, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation JANET P. OAKLEY, National Association of Regional Councils, Washington, D.C. ROBERT G. STANLEY, American Public Transit Association, Washington, D.C. SAMUEL L. ZIMMERMAN, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Resource Writer DANIEL BRAND, Charles River Associates, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts Transportation Research Board Staff ROBERT E. SPICHER, Director, Technical Activities JAMES A. SCOTT, Senior Program Officer NANCY A. ACKERMAN, Director, Reports and Editorial Services LUANNE CRAYTON Assistant Editor Preface Jack Kinstlinger KCI Technologies, Inc. THE OBJECTIVE OF THE CONFERENCE on Moving Urban America, held in Charlotte, North Carolina, May 6-8, 1992, was to advise the United States Department of Transportation, the community at large, and state and local elected officials on the appropriate planning and decision- making process needed to select and develop projects that will improve urban mobility, with emphasis on efficiency, concern for the environment, and shared responsibilities among agencies and affected groups, all within the context of the Intermodal Surface Trans- portation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA). Conference participants attempted to identify the relevant issues, clarify the new partnerships and relationships that will be formed, and I identify planning and decision-making processes that will enhance urban mobility. The enactment of ISTEA provided state and local authorities with unprecedented financial capacity and critically needed programming flexibility to develop economical, efficient, and environmentally sound transportation systems. At the same time, new prescriptions have been established concerning institutional arrangements and environmental constraints. Programming flexibility will permit the selection of optimal transportation solutions instead of the previous set of solutions and projects v driven by financial eligibility. Although flexibility opens up new opportunities and a greater variety of choices, it may also represent obstacles to prompt decision-making because a much larger number of actors will now be discussing a much greater variety of possible solutions. In practice, perhaps the struggle for the optimum solution will result in disagreement, stalemate, and ultimately, lack of effective programs and actions. That is one of the major challenges to be confronted. This conference presented an opportunity to recommend a vision and innovative approach that will pull together the divergent partici- pants and result in effective decision making. This conference was the seventh major conference to address the issue of more effective urban transportation. It carries on a tradition dating back 36 years to the 1957 conference in Hartford, Connecticut, during which members of the highway community and professional planners debated whether construction of urban Interstate highways should be suspended until comprehensive land use plans could be adopted. The 1958 conference in Sagamore, New York, was attended by elected officials and highway engineers who discussed building the urban Interstate highway system. The challenge at the time was to open up the country to rapid post-World War 11 development. It was seen largely in the context of highway engineering at a time when study techniques were still crude. The 1962 conference in Hershey, Pennsylvania, was held to resolve the conflicts between highway officials, and federal housing officials and land use planners, who wished to see urban values and urban planning become a more central part of transportation decision making and argued that transportation is more than an engineering challenge. The 1965 conference in Williamsburg, Virginia, was sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Offi- cials, the National League of Cities, and the National League of Coun- ties. Announced at the Williamsburg conference were a number of resolves to encourage a cooperative planning process, a desire that transportation decisions be driven by urban values and goals, a hope that urban highways be consistent with regional and local land use plans, and a plea that a continuing transportation planning process be established. The 1971 conference in the Poconos, Pennsylvania, was the first sponsored by the Transportation Research Board. Ted Holmes, of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), who was long regarded as the father of urban transportation planning, advocated greater vi attention to the environment and communities, greater emphasis on inter- modality, and more citizen participation. He urged that state and local elected officials, rather than professional planners, become primary actors in the planning process and in the conferences. Finally, participants at the 1982 Airlie House conference in Virginia recommended a more flexible urban transportation planning process, adjusted to the nature and scope of individual area problems and individual sectors and corridors. Conferees urged that the federal government be more flexible in its prescriptions and that regulations be streamlined in order to leave decisions to state and local governments. Many concepts that are often taken for granted were born at these conferences. Heated debate, dissension, and finally, compromise at the conferences produced concepts such as intermodalism and balanced transportation; citizen participation; environmental protection; part- nership arrangements among state and local governments, MPOs, transit authorities, and citizen groups; relationships between transportation and land use, and transportation systems management and traffic demand management. It is interesting to look back and remember how radical many of these concepts were 10, 20, or 25 years ago and how conferences such as this one resolved many- of those issues and moved the process along. Ten years or so from now the participants at the next urban transportation conference will refer to the Charlotte conference as another milepost at which innovative approaches were adopted and the art and science of urban transportation decision making was moved one step further in its evolution. The major obstacles have rarely been technical issues. There is ample evidence to show that, given sufficient funding, we have most of the knowledge and skills to solve the technical problems of improving urban transportation by repairing or constructing additional highway lanes, transit lines, stations, and services, and even such relatively new concepts as intermodal terminals, high-occupancy vehicle lanes, ramp meters, incident management, intelligent vehicle- highway systems, and the like. The more difficult and vexing challenges have always been the institutional ones of achieving effective decision making among different advocacy groups and power sharing among federal, state, and local elected officials, and bringing together and synthesizing vastly different sets of values and priorities. vii The enactment of ISTEA represents a new era for state and regional transportation planning in the following context: State and local governments are now given more flexibility in determining transportation solutions and greater flexibility to transfer money between program accounts. State and local governments must develop, establish, and im- plement management systems (bridge, pavement, safety, congestion, public transportation, and intermodal facilities and systems), thereby placing greater emphasis on managing the transportation system, as opposed to making capital investments. The relationship between planning and decision making is strengthened, and six new management systems are authorized. Planning process requirements are included, and the preparation of long range plans and transportation improvement programs at statewide and metropolitan levels is authorized. Emphasis is placed on activities that enhance the environment, such as wetland habitat, historic sites, and activities that contribute to meeting air quality standards. Attainment of national ambient area air quality standards is emphasized through funds for projects in clean air nonattainment areas for ozone and carbon monoxide. Increased emphasis is placed on public participation by those affected by the quality of transportation systems provided-the new stakeholders at the state and regional levels. The following are some of the critical issues confronting urban transportation decision makers. Can transportation engineers recognize that lay citizens and elected officials have legitimate points of view concerning repair or construction of transportation facilities and provision of services? Can transportation professionals accept that environmental and so- cial issues can be as crucial and legitimate as mobility and economic considerations? Can environmental advocates move beyond being single-issue spokespersons and recognize that mobility and economic development are crucial objectives of society? How can transit and state transportation agencies develop the staff, talent, and new skills necessary to develop transportation improvements vii that are affordable and consistent with the Clean Air Act and that enjoy community acceptance? Can MPOs move beyond performing technical studies, travel demand forecasting, and longrange loans consisting largely of wish lists', and begin to recognize the importance of fiscally restrained programs, phasing of construction, system preservation, and the need to develop skills in cost estimating and project scheduling or accept input from agencies that have those requisite skills? Do councils of governments or MPOs have the political will to resolve interjurisdictional conflicts and rank individual projects, which may please some Jurisdictions and antagonize others? Can governors and state legislators recognize that within urban areas, project selection and prioritization must be conducted cooper- atively with local elected officials, even though they involve state funds, and that local officials will want to share in the credit of getting the projects constructed but avoid the wrath of those whose projects do not pass muster? How can planners ensure that funds are used for preservation of the existing system instead of politically glamorous capacity-enhancement projects? What rational basis do we use to make multimodal project and programming decisions, given the differences between FHWA and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) project development regulations and procedures? How can elected officials who are involved in making transportation decisions be shown the real effect that CAAA will have on project selection and programming? How can transportation planners move away from the traditional planning process that has been focused on massive capital-intensive construction projects with high regional visibility that can be easily modeled and move toward smaller improvement models, such as pedestrian paths, bikeways, and safety projects, which perhaps can best be identified by community groups? Although small in scope and cost, projects like these often can mobilize community support and make important contributions to urban mobility. Finally, how can planners take advantage of the land use powers of local elected officials to facilitate transportation improvement pro- grams by either reserving rights-of-way in advance of project develop- ment or protecting the integrity of a facility once it is open to traffic and perhaps avoiding the need to expand the facility in the future by ix achieving more effective growth management? The vexing problem of land use, which comes up at each of these conferences and has never been well resolved in terms of transportation interface, must be addressed. Perhaps as local elected officials through their MPOs become more intimately involved in transportation decision making, transportation professionals can finally begin to get a handle on the land use- transportation interface. x Contents Introductory Remarks 1 Thomas J. Harrelson Conference Summary 3 Daniel Brand Conference Findings 20 Workshop Reports 33 State Transportation Plans, 35 State Implementation Plans, 39 Management Systems, 46 Transportation Improvement Programs, 54 Metropolitan Long-Range Plans, 66 Resource Papers 79 Issues Facing Urban America, 81 Charles Royer Planning: The Challenge of Being the Glue, 91 Michael D. Meyer Panelists: Sarah C. Campbell, James Q. Duane, Gloria J. Jeff Partnership and Partnership Development: ISTEA and CAAA- Breakthrough or Mire?, 114 James E. Kunde and Dale F. Bertsch Redefining the Urban Partnership: Public-Private Toll Financing Provisions of ISTEA, 128 Steven A. Steckler Wanted: Pliable Paradigms for Transportation Investment, 134 Thomas D. Larson New Dimensions in Transportation Planning, 147 Brian W Clymer Steering Committee Biographical Information 152 Participants 158 Introductory Remarks Thomas J. Harrelson Secretary, North Carolina Department of Transportation LET ME WELCOME YOU all to North Carolina and to Charlotte, our state's largest city. Although Raleigh is the capital and the seat of government, Charlotte is quickly becoming one of the South's largest business communities. It is indeed a pleasure to be among an audience that truly understands the role of transportation nationwide and in individual states. Many Americans have become accustomed to good roads, bridges, airports, rail passenger, and other transportation services. Unfor- tunately, as I am sure you all are aware, many take those transportation services for granted. That is not the case for this group. You know all too well how difficult it is to accomplish a high level of transportation in this country, and that is what we are here to discuss. I am pleased that we could take this chance to discuss two significant pieces of legislation and how they will affect the future of transportation. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) was a crucial piece of legislation for many states, particularly North Carolina, which historically has been the number one donor state in the nation. The state is fortunate to have increased its share of the return, but ISTEA is a complex and comprehensive act, and it will take some time to learn how to administer it. We are still in the process 1 2/ MOVING URBAN AMERICA of trying to decide how much additional funding is indeed available for a backlog of projects in our state. ISTEA provides many opportunities and flexibility and allows consideration of innovative and alternative ways of doing business. The act presents the opportunity to better define and fine tune the roles and relationships of the North Carolina Department of Transportation with metropolitan planning organizations in North Carolina. It will enable us to focus more on transit, ride sharing, and high-occupancy vehicle lanes. We are also excited about the implications and plans for congestion management. Perhaps more important, ISTEA will allow us to tailor solutions to better remedy transportation problems. Clean air issues will also be another focus during this conference. Since implementation of the Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, air quality has improved significantly in some large cities, but there is still a long way to go. I hope we can gain further expertise on that subject during this conference. Both the Clean Air Act Amendments and ISTEA will undoubtedly have a large impact on all transportation programs, and as the theme of the conference suggests, it will not be business as usual. Hopefully, today's forum will open the doors for cooperative planning and efforts among federal, state, and local agencies. Conference Summary Daniel Brand Charles River Associates, Boston, Massachusetts THE CHARLOTTE CONFERENCE ON Moving Urban America was the seventh in a series of landmark conferences held since the late 1950s to anticipate and document major changes in urban transportation planning in the United States. The conference was convened soon after major changes in urban transportation planning, funding categories, and decision making had been authorized by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), which incorporated certain requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA). The 150 conference participants represented a broad cross section of metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), private groups, and federal, state, and local governments. Conference participants shared a tremendous feeling of optimism and empowerment that differed remarkably from that of 10 years ago, when the last in this series of conferences was held. The incrementalism and severely limited view of what was possible then has given way to excitement in the field and many new possibilities and options. This new enthusiasm is promoted by ISTEA's substantial and flexible fund- ing, its new programs, the possibilities offered by such new transportation technologies as intelligent vehicle-highway systems (IVHS), and the emphasis of ISTEA and CAAA on quality-of-life issues. These are good times to be moving urban America. 3 4/ MOVING URBAN AMERICA The consensus at the conference was that solutions to transportation problems that have broad appeal are extremely hard to find, and therefore different solutions are needed for different regions. It is indeed timely (and no accident) that ISTEA incorporates into law an unprecedented dispersal of power to states and MPOS, coupled with an admonition to engage private citizens and citizens' groups in finding transportation solutions that work in their communities. There was substantial agreement that better partnerships must be developed to avoid paralysis of the decision-making process. This will require opening up the process and incurring the attendant risks to develop the trust between negotiating parties that allows decisions to be made. Examples of successful partnering are presented in this summary and later in this report. The conference participants also appeared to be in substantial agreement on many elements of a vision for urban transportation. Clearly, serving the needs of consumers-customers-instead of the more narrow needs of the producers of new transportation capacity should be the first priority. Achieving transportation objectives means that transportation improvements must also operate within environmental and social realities. A user-friendly infrastructure must provide not only transportation capacity but also information on how to use that capacity to increase mobility. A user-friendly system will require different ways of measuring the costs and opportunities of travel for individuals and for the system as a whole. The vision and findings of the Charlotte conference, elaborated upon in this summary and in the rest of the report, can help push back the old prejudices that still tend to box in transportation planners. The new approaches required by ISTEA require immediate attention. CONFERENCE OBJECTIVES The Charlotte conference was held before many vital questions relating to ISTEA had been resolved. These questions ranged from the need for clear federal guidance on required dates and content of required transportation planning documents and how to carry out a defensible analytically based planning process that informs decisions to whether there is a serious intent in today's society to enforce the goals of ISTEA regarding dean air, land use control, and broad participatory decision-making. In keeping with the newly authorized dispersal of powers, conference participants were not overly concerned with the absence of federal Conference Summary / 5 guidance and regulations on ISTEA. Rather, in a refreshing break with the past, the conference objective-stated at the outset by conference cochair Jack Kintslinger-was as follows: To advise USDOT and provide understanding and guidance to the community at large and state and local elected officials on the appropriate planning and decision-making process needed to develop projects that will improve urban mobility with emphasis on efficiency, concern for the environment, and recognizing the shared responsibilities among responsible agencies and affected groups, all within the context of ISTEA and CAAA. It is hoped and expected that conference participants will identify the relevant issues, clarify the new partnerships and relationships that will be formed, and identify planning and decision-making processes that will enhance urban mobility. Conference planners sought at the outset to establish the current context of transportation decision making so that. in the words of Thomas D. Larson, Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the conference participants could shape a vision for urban transportation that would empower and enable the planners to satisfy the mobility and other needs of urban America. Conference cochair Lawrence Dahms, Executive Director of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in San Francisco, urged that the recognition of the significance of emerging congestion and mobility problems not be perceived as anti-environment and that the apparent complexity of the new ISTEA categories and CAAA requirements not overwhelm the participants. Samuel L. Zimmerman of the Federal Transit Admin- istration (FTA) suggested that the success of the conference would be measured by how well the groundwork was laid for the next piece of legislation. The conference produced a large number of specific findings and recommendations related to context, partnering, planning, the federal role, and the products of urban and state-level transportation and air quality planning. These findings and recommendations are summarized here and presented in more detail later in this report. ESTABLISHING THE CONFERENCE Significant changes have occurred in urban transportation during the 30 years since the passage of the landmark 1962 Highway Act that 6 / MOVING URBAN AMERICA required the continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive (3C) urban transportation planning process. ISTEA ratifies and institutionalizes many of these changes. However, it also leapfrogs current best practice in a number of areas and sets up many new challenges that the conference worked hard to articulate. ISTEA was the product of an activist Congress that imposed unprecedented mandates for a level playing field between modes (flexibility) and gave state and local constituencies unprecedented power and federal dollars to spend according to their own priorities. The process leading to the enactment of ISTEA resulted from powerful societal forces for change that are not about to subside. America is in the middle of a transition with an uncertain outcome that clearly will be influenced by the following: Changing political forces (e.g., loss of faith in the ability of government to solve problems and a sense among ordinary citizens of a lack of power to influence major government actions); Technological change (e.g., the consumer electronics revolution personal computing, and the growth of information utilities); and Public- versus private-sector roles (e.g., the active recruiting of the private sector to solve transportation problems). The significance of this conference becomes clearer in the context of the six previous conferences in the same series. The changes over time in the agendas of those conferences are remarkably faithful reflections of the evolution of concerns leading to this conference. The 1957, 1958, and 1962 conferences reflected the strong support at that time by the political and engineering communities that the Interstate program would open the country to rapid post World War 11 development. The politicians and engineers were opposed by urban planners and designers, who were already actively voicing their opposition to the new urban freeways because of the social costs and the dislocation caused by the highways. The urbanists and social critics were alarmed, believing that the new highways were driving urban development and not the reverse. The 1965 conference produced a series of resolves for stronger planning agencies and a desire that transportation decisions be driven by urban values and goals. Conference participants hoped that urban highways would be integrated with regional and local land use plans, and they pleaded for a truly coordinated transportation planning pro- Conference Summary / 7 cess. It was recognized that the 3C process required by Section 134 of the 1962 Highway Act did not satisfy the objections of urban planners to the dislocations caused by the new urban Interstate system. At the 1971 conference, Ted Holmes, a revered transportation planner with FHWA, made some candid remarks. His remarks, as summarized by Transportation Research Board staff in 1992, include the following: After the 1965 compliance date (by which analytical travel fore-casting processes were to be completed), the 3C process began to flag. The process was never completely intermodal. Planning administration had collapsed as a result of failure to institutionalize the ad hoc groups that were formed to carry out compliance with Section 134 of the 1962 Highway Act. Insufficient attention was being given to environmental and community values. Greater citizen participation and controlled land use were necessary. The absence of state and local agencies as sponsors of the conference was noted. A federal takeover of the planning process might be possible. (This may have been a warning that the U.S. Department of Transportation might seek to administer the urban planning process from Washington.) There was a lack of leadership that was exhibited in the past by the leading highway engineers of the former Bureau of Public Roads (now FHWA). There was considerable discussion at the 1971 conference on how to bring the planning process closer to programming and implementation of projects. Finally, at the 1982 conference, concern was voiced that planning requirements had become too complex. New planning techniques had not found their way into practice, and future changes in social, demographic, energy, environmental, and technology factors were unclear. On the other hand, fiscal constraints were tight, and the federal government was shifting the burdens of financing and decision making to state and local governments and the private sector. The future of planning was in doubt. The 1982 conference reaffirmed the need for systematic urban transportation planning, especially to maximize the effectiveness of limited 8 / MOVING URBAN AMERICA public funds. However, the planning process needed to be adjusted to the nature and scope of the problems of individual areas. It did not need to be the same for growing and declining areas, nor for corridor and regional problems. The conferees also concluded that the federal government had been overly restrictive in its regulations, making the planning process costly, time-consuming, and difficult to administer. They agreed that regulations should be streamlined, the goals to be achieved should be specified, and the decisions on how to meet them should be left to the states and local governments (1). The findings of the 1982 conference are a logical precursor to those of the Charlotte conference. Another contextual view, of events leading up to the Charlotte conference was expressed by Daniel Brand of Charles River Associates. He stated that when these conferences started in the late 1950s, the Interstate highway system was the single solution, or single vision, as Sarah Campbell of the Surface Transportation Policy Project (STTP) called it. The highways were built with 90 percent federal funding and no cost ceiling for approved mileage. Since there was no cost cap and the federal matching ratio was so high, the highways were built as large as possible and represented an attempt to solve as many transportation problems as possible. Gold-plated was an adjective sometimes used to describe urban Interstate highways. Unfortunately, those big new highways brought with them some displacement of residents and jobs. The conference heard Charles Royer, former mayor of Seattle, state, "You can't build fancy transportation systems across some of these chasms that are opening up in American society. You can't connect burning downtown buildings with one-acre lots in suburbia. You can't connect rich places with very poor places. You can't connect white places with black places." The early conferences in the Charlotte series were a response to the urban highway revolt of the 1950s and 1960s Local planners and public officials were up in arms because of the decline of the central city, which was caused by many factors (not only the new highways). An early response to these controversies was to implement an ana- lytic process. Section 134 of the 1962 Highway Act required regional land use and travel forecasts to be carried out by July 1, 1965. New planning agencies were set up to conduct the new technical studies. Those were exciting times, and many professionals may remember the exhilaration of that era of mushrooming analytic methods development. Conference Summary / 9 Unfortunately, the problem was not technical but political. The models pointed to certain solutions, but the plans had no bearing on the decisions that were made. The 1962 Highway Act did not marry decision makers to their planners, or even to their planning agencies. The analytic process faltered by the time of the 1965 conference, but this shortcoming was not stated openly until the 1971 conference. Between the 1971 and 1982 conferences, a multiplicity of federal program categories promoted certain solutions, including transit. Local transportation investments were driven in large part by their financial eligibility under the federal program categories. The urban transportation policy of most states and regions became one of match- ing federal dollars. This policy may have been attractive for a while, when federal funding was growing (especially for new urban programs like transit), but by the time of the 1982 conference, the Reagan era and a major recession had combined to reduce federal spending and, certainly, federal transportation leadership. The decade between the 1982 and 1992 conferences has culminated in ISTEA. The events of the last 35 years have established today's context. The insights and findings of the 1992 conference will help shape and express the vision for the future. THE VISION The 1992 conference keynote and resource papers in this report present excellent vision statements for urban transportation. In his keynote speech, Larson stressed, "Applying the new directions embodied in ISTEA demands a sea change in the way we think about transportation investments and the role they will play in our society. Passage of ISTEA provides prima facie evidence that efficient achievement of our transportation objectives will be defined principally in terms of the customers transportation must serve and by the constraints within which it must live." Larson described the earlier producer view of transportation, noting, "Since we tended to think in terms of facilities to accommodate vehicle miles traveled (VMT), there was little motivation to think of individual customers." He traced the producer mentality of the highway builder back hundreds of years in this country to' an historic policy to open up the country and thus provide access and interregional movement within politically tolerable variances. To a remarkable degree, we have 10 / MOVING URBAN AMERICA continued to do what we did as a nation, through the canal era, the railroad era, and the early highway era." ISTEA requires explicit consideration of whether adding transportation capacity in ozone and carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment areas produces more, rather than less, air pollution. Indeed, CAAA establishes the principle of regional emissions budgets and conformity to the emission reduction schedule in state implementation plans (SIPs). In nonattainment transportation management areas (areas with populations greater than 200,000 that contain nonattainment areas), highway projects that significantly increase capacity for single-occupant vehicles must be part of an approved congestion management system and SIP. Understandably, FTA Administrator Brian Clymer stated in his conference keynote speech: "I think a dozen or so years from now ... when we look back on the early 1990s, we will have no problem saying that ISTEA was merely the second-most important piece of legislation to emerge from this era. The law that probably really changed the transportation landscape could well turn out to be the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990." Indeed, the amendments require the minimization or management of VMT and other transportation measures as surrogates for control of CO, hydrocarbon, and nitrogen oxide vehicle emissions to achieve National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone and CO. The 1992 conference may be said to mark the end of a 200-year era in this country of unbridled expansion of transportation facilities that increase capacity to accommodate some fixed expected demand. Most urban travel demand models are well known to be deficient in their ability to evaluate the travel effects of added transportation capacity (2). The evolution of urban transportation investment policy from producer-driven to consumer- and social-cost-driven is only as old as this series of conferences, of which the 1992 conference may be said to represent the turning point. Continuing with the emerging vision of the importance of the user view, Robert Kochanowski, Executive Director of the Southwestern Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh) MPO, stated, "Much has been said about congestion management being measured by level of service, by traffic volume. But a number of us believe strongly that congestion manage- ment ... must be based on user and market information as well as simple traffic patterns." Participants in the workshop on management systems agreed that traditional level-of-service (LOS) measurement is perceived as too sim- Conference Summary / 11 plistic for current needs, even if it is relatively easy to collect. Delays on highway links measure congestion-an impediment to mobility. Mobility, which is the goal transportation planners seek, is measured by the opportunities for and the benefits from travel. Transportation planners should plan to maximize the net benefits from travel, not to produce an elusive LOS performance standard. Measures of mobility differ from measures of congestion. Larson offered the telecommunications industry as a model for a new transportation paradigm. It "builds and operates for the public a pervasive infrastructure network at a large initial cost that is shared by a wide variety of customers for pleasure and private productivity enhancement. It's known for its user friendliness." Indeed, the development of a user-friendly information infrastructure to complement and increase the productivity of the massive and growing investment in transportation infrastructure is what differentiates IVHS strategies from conventional increases in transportation capacity (3). The concern for mobility as contrasted with congestion and the concern for the user and not the facilities as ends in themselves were recurring themes in the 1992 workshops. The user and information orientation, together with the rapid pace of technological change, accounts for much of the current excitement in transportation and the dramatic increase in the number of transportation improvement options being considered today. Providing users with improved information on travel choices to influence their travel decisions may by itself reduce the social costs of travel on existing transportation facilities (4). NEW PARTNERING The theme of partnering pervaded the conference. Conference organizers recognized the need to learn how to work together in the new urban transportation partnership mandated by ISTEA. The challenge is to bring all the new actors with diverse interests together in a new partnership capable of agreeing on an efficient mix of intermodal projects. Without effective partnering, the result will be paralysis instead of progress-from ISTEA's unprecedented dispersal of power in transportation decision making (5). James Kunde, Executive Director of the Public Services Institute in Lorain County, Ohio, and an expert on negotiation, presented a re- source paper on partnering. He cited the importance of involvement, 12 / MOVING URBAN AMERICA having all parties at the table . . . discovering the same thing at the same time. Without simultaneous involvement, he said, four agencies or decision makers, who may be 80 percent in agreement (which is high), will with sequential meetings and no feedback agree less than 80 percent of the time. He cited negotiation as the only way to implement anything, by getting everybody together at the same time and coming to one common conclusion. Royer cited the results of recent research that supported this conclusion. In addition to reminding conference participants that faith in government is at a low level and that solutions to any urban problem that have broad appeal are extremely hard to find, he cited recent research that found that the only predictor of a high level of confidence in city government is a high level of civic involvement. "People are generally satisfied ... if they are part of the action." Kunde stated, If you watch a process and you see it move from conflict to a psychology of agreement, it changes the chemistry of what is happening." This process was readily apparent in the SIP workshop. Hank Dittmar, workshop chair, reported: "After 9 hr of working together in probably the most divisive area in transportation- the its transportation-air quality arena-our diverse group learned how to trust and how to communicate with one another. Our microcosm thus reinforced the basic finding of the conference: if one takes the risk to open the process up, anything becomes achievable." Campbell added, "[My] view [is] that one of the things that improves governance and that will improve the outcome of our transportation processes and will improve, ultimately, our products is an openness. This is no longer a closed union shop." The ultimate test of patnering in implementing ISTEA, according to Kunde, will depend on the degree to which MPOs can accommodate the challenge of becoming effective as real political decision-making bodies. There was considerable agreement at the conference that many MPOs had a long way to go in the ISTEA process. Jim Duane from the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Government (the Cincinnati Region MPO) said, "We have been left out in the past, we continue to be left out, and the biggest issue facing [an MPO] today is that it is the new partner, it is the most active partner, it is the partner that is, in fact, going to integrate all these requirements that are necessary to Clean Air and ISTEA." The conference findings and recommendations, presented next, reflect some of these realities. Conference Summary / 13 Some MPOs have long been fostering partnerships in their regions. Dahms cited that with his "99 cities, 9 counties, 23 transit operators, and 9 congestion management agencies, and a whole bunch of others in the region, partnership is not a new thing, it's an old thing." His agency anticipated the passage of ISTEA and, practicing "the inclusion word that we have heard today [at the conference]," convened a new group of 36 partners to try to move joint projects faster. All 16 joint projects on this group's agenda are now moving ahead faster than before, because the "spotlight" has been put on these "multiple agency projects, which are the ones that tend to get the least attention.... So we are building on the idea that nothing succeeds like success. We want to show that partnership can really be effective and keep the momentum alive." In summary, the conference recognized that money and power in urban transportation are devolving to the local level, where the most serious problems are. Many hard choices will have to be made in many regions to resolve the conflicts between mobility and environmental objectives. The time has passed when these hard choices were imposed from on high (at the federal level). When they were, faith in government fell and government failed. Value judgments on the hard choices must now be made locally, and local participation-civic involvement-can breed confidence in government, as conference participants heard from Royer. If the only remedy for democracy is more democracy, ISTEA is on the right track. It has legislated more democracy, more power away from Washington and away from state capitals to MPOs charged with involving private citizens and local groups in local decision making. Hopefully this will make people decide to close the gap between their ideals and what their government decides in urban transportation. We hope to restore faith in government, even if an excess of democracy risks a few mistakes. CONFERENCE FINDINGS After the presentations, panels, and plenary session discussions of the context of ISTEA and the need for a new partnership in urban transportation, conference participants broke into workshops to produce specific findings and recommendations. These findings represent the real contribution of this conference to urban transportation planning. As per the conference objectives, they provide understanding and specific 14 / MOVING URBAN AMERICA guidance to the community at large and to state and local elected officials. The workshops that produced conference findings were focused on products of the transportation planning process: State transportation plans, SIPs Management systems, Transportation improvement programs (TIPs), (both metro- politan and state plans), and Metropolitan long-range plans. Workshop participants assembled for 3-hr discussions on (a) context and partnerships, (b) products, and (c) different needs of areas. The first round of workshop discussions was focused on the context, challenges, and opportunities for successful partnering in promoting the objectives of ISTEA and CAAA. The second round was focused on specific issues and conflict areas related to producing the planning document of concern to the workshop (e.g., SIPs). These issues in- cluded the following: Power sharing; Land use controls at the local level versus regional- and state-level transportation investments; Integrating air quality into transportation decisions; Training needs; Appropriate technical roles of actors; Intermodal and multimodal factors; Integration of transportation programming, including ISTEA's 19 identified factors and 6 management systems; Ensuring public involvement; Funding flexibility across modes and functions (e.g., operating versus capital); and Private-sector involvement. In the third round of workshops, participants considered the needs of specific regions according to their size and status (e.g., small areas, transportation management associations, multistate, and clean air attainment and nonattainment). Conference Summary /15 The findings summarized here and presented in more detail in the rest of this report cannot represent an encyclopedia of good practice. However, just as with the products of the six previous conferences in this series during the last 35 years, these findings faithfully reflect the concerns and aspirations of a broad cross section of current participants in urban transportation planning and decision making. The first set of findings summarized here cuts across specific transportation planning products. This summary is followed by a summary of findings relating to each planning product. The findings and recommendations do help to, in the words of Larson, shape a vision for urban transportation that will empower and enable us to satisfy the mobility and other needs of urban America." Findings on Crosscutting Issues Context of ISTEA The promise of ISTEA is dependent on achieving broad commitment to realistic, achievable results. The multiple factors that must be considered in adopting state and regional transportation plans expand their scope to embody a vision for improved quality of life. States and MPOs must expand public participation to involve the full range of community interests, to educate and be educated, if this new scope of planning is to be meaningful. The vital, but elusive, transportation-land use connection demands the special attention of transportation planning officials. The perceived complexity of the combined air quality and trans- portation planning process must be simplified if it is to meaningfully include informed citizen involvement. Partnerships The advantages to be derived from ISTEA's flexible funding de- pend on decisions to be made cooperatively by state and local officials. This shared delegation of responsibility challenges new partnerships to transcend the barriers that separate existing power centers. In particular, close state department of transportation-MPO co- operative relationships and joint planning processes are imperative. 16 / MOVING URBAN AMERICA Inclusion of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as an active partner, without compromising its regulatory function, is critical to successfully blending air quality and transportation planning into a single integrated function. Real risk of decision gridlock confronts those choosing to ignore the mutual veto powers emanating from ISTEA and the Clean Air Act creating pressure for emerging partnership roles to be reconciled quickly. Planning Process Newly required management systems and planning products must be integrated in order to fully benefit from their individual development. Particular attention must be given to product phasing for which, in the initial stages, ISTEA has not provided for sequential development (e.g., state and MPO plans are due concurrently). Attention must also be paid to transition problems stemming from the absence of federal guidance, as in the case of TIP development without EPA conformity guidance. Federal Role Federal guidance should be general and flexible; federal agencies should support local initiatives undertaken in advance of regulation and encourage experimentation. Federal agencies should be clearinghouses to provide timely ex- change of ideas, sharing of diverse experiences, and reports of strategies and activities that are and are not effectively advancing the revised planning process. Federal agencies should act as catalysts and provide resources for needed research and technical assistance to upgrade analytical tools and training vitally needed by the planning profession. Findings Relating to Specific Planning Products State Transportation Plans Partners. The plan of each state should define the roles to be filled by the governor state transportation department, and other state, regional, and local agencies contributing to its development and implementation. Conference Summary / 17 ISTEA emphasizes active outreach to involve the citizens affected. Content. The plans should include strategic policy issues and performance objectives: an analysis of alternative strategies where consideration of the 23 factors listed in ISTEA comes into play, integration of the management systems, metropolitan long- range plans, and SIPS. The plans should explicitly set forth a strategy for their adoption and commitment. Integration/Interaction. The complex interrelationship of plans and management systems poses more of a challenge than development of any individual plan. Building and nurturing an understandable process for plan integration and agency interaction will be critical. National Highway System (NHS). NHS remains the single most dominant element of any state plan. It must be defined and improved in the context of the overall state-MPO planning process. State Implementation Plans SIPs cannot stand alone. Their development must be integrated as part of the process of developing the state and regional transportation plans. Air quality agencies and transportation agencies should join forces to define feasible and defensible transportation pollutant reduction targets. Transportation control measures should also be developed jointly by air quality and transportation agencies. TIP conformity regulations should be distinct from conformity determination for the long-range transportation plans. To hold the long-range plans to the same rigid fiscal constraints would undermine exploration of alternatives that should be encouraged at this stage. A specific research agenda must be promulgated to better under- stand the promise and limitations associated with transportation- air quality trade-offs. Management Systems The six management systems must be viewed as an interrelated package, not as six stand-alone products. Generally, highway pavement, bridge, and highway safety man- agement systems are well established, but they need to be integrated, especially in their common data requirements. 18 / MOVING URBAN AMERICA Congestion management is a key system in the overall planning decision process. It includes both short- and long-term perspectives and will require a new perspective on system multimodal performance. A five-step process for developing the congestion (mobility) management system (CMS) would -Define multimodal and multi-user state and metropolitan systems; -Define LOS, operating characteristics, and system deficiencies; -Examine by user group the mobility of people and goods for the system; -Examine nonuser and externality effects of each system (e.g., air quality, etc.); and -Define multimodal solutions to correct most critical deficiencies. The public transportation and intermodal management system development should be guided by the five-step CMS process plus guidance on such specific issues as multimodal transfers and freight movement. Transportation Improvement Programs State and metropolitan TIPs must conform with each other. This requires an interactive process in which the funding available to programs in TIPs is mutually understood. Project selection should flow equitably from TIPS, requiring proportional sharing of obligational authority and reliance on the authorization level as a cap in programming any fund category. Technical tools must be developed to support effective multimodal programming. Special efforts are requited to make the TIP process meaningful and available to the broader range of participants that should now be involved. Metropolitan Long-Range Transportation Plans Long-range plans should define an integrated multimodal and intermodal transportation system. Although long-range plans are required to be realistic and implementable, they should not constrain a region's vision. In this sense, the constrained plan is seen as creating a mandate for planners and local officials to advocate and secure needed resources. Conference Summary / 19 The multiple functions enumerated by ISTEA to be considered in developing long-range plans imply that they must extend beyond a narrow transportation focus to embrace land use, air quality, and other social and environmental issues. Technical deficiencies that need to be addressed in improving longrange plans include (a) distinguishing the appropriate scale of systems versus project level analysis, (b) recognizing the renewed reliance on and integration of transportation and air quality modeling, and (c) developing methods to measure the soft quality-of-life characteristics, such as safety, community cohesion, aesthetics, and environmental balance. REFERENCES 1 . E. Weiner. Summary Statement for Airlie House Conference. In Urban Trans- portation Planning in the United States: A Historical Overview, rev. ed. U. S. Department of Transportation, Feb. 1986. 2. D. Brand. Study of Travel Forecasting Models to Evaluate the Travel and Environmental Effects of Added Transportation Capacity. Presented at DOT/EPA Conference on the Travel and Environmental Effects of Added Transportation Capacity, Bethesda, Md., Dec. 1991. 3. Special Report 232: Advanced Vehicle and Highway Technologies. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1991, pp. 34 ff. 4. D. Brand. Point of View: Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems: A Smart Choice for Travelers and Society. TR News, May-June 1992. 5. J. Peterson. Highways vs. Mass Transit Impasse Threatens $1 Billion in Annual Federal Aid: A New Law Gives Mass Transit an Equal Claim on Transportation Aid. The New York Times, June 27, 1992, p. 28. Conference Findings THE CONFERENCE ON MOVING Urban America occurred a scant 4 months after passage of the landmark Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), well before a consensus of opinion had developed on the importance of the act or its impact on urban communities. This factor, along with an attempt by the conference committee to invite a diverse group of urban, statewide, federal, and public interest groups, led many to doubt whether the conference would result in findings and conclusions. The workshop sessions did result in the identification of a broad set of findings and conclusions, many of which represented consensus among all five workshop groups. Those findings are presented here on crosscutting issues. In addition, each of the five workshop groups developed a set of findings and conclusions specific to their assigned topic area. These findings and conclusions were presented to conference attendees at the concluding session. Summaries of the workshop findings are presented here; complete workshop reports are presented later in the report. FINDINGS ON CROSSCUTTING ISSUES Conference cochairs Jack Kinstlinger and Lawrence Dahms called workshop moderators and facilitators together at the conclusion of the 20 Conference Findings / 21 third and final workshop session to develop reports to present at the concluding general session of the conference. From that discussion emerged an awareness of broad agreement across all five workshops on a number of issues. These crosscutting findings and conclusions generally were consistent with the conference focus on issues related to the changing context for urban mobility, emerging partnerships, the evolving planning process, and the changing federal role. Context of ISTEA The promise of ISTEA is dependent on achieving broad commitment to realistic, achievable results. The ambitious objectives outlined in ISTEA must be translated into realistic and achievable expectations. It is not an issue of not meeting the expectations of ISTEA. It is not an issue of lowered expectations. Each metropolitan planning organization (MPO) and state must work cooperatively with the stakeholders involved in carrying out this new planning and programming process and set realistic mutual goals-ambitious, but realistic, goals-for which results can be demonstrated to Congress as a progress report on the achievement of its lofty expectations. The multiple factors that must be considered in adopting state and regional transportation plans expand the plans' scope to embody a vision for improved quality of life. ISTEA calls for MPOs and states to consider 15 and 23 separate factors, respectively, in formulating plans, programs, and management systems. Taken together, the requirement to consider these new factors can be seen as expressing the intent of Congress to reform the transportation planning and programming process to better address the needs of the customer, the user of transportation systems. For the user, transportation means mobility, and mobility is inextricably linked to quality of life. This new orientation to customers and quality of life means a new approach to process, product, and measurement of success. Performance becomes more important than capacity, and integration of transportation plans with community goals becomes more important than vehicle miles traveled. States and MPOs must expand public participation activities to involve the full range of community interests-to educate and be educated-if this new scope of planning is to be meaningful. Each area must reach out and involve people in the development of new plans and programs. In addition to direct governmental partners, the process 22 / MOVING URBAN AMERICA must also include advocacy and public interest groups, such as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the National Association of Regional Councils, the Surface Transporta- tion Policy Project, the American Public Transit Association, the American Planning Association, and city and county groups, including the National League of Cities and the National Association of Counties. Members of the transportation community must be open to education by new people and partners. The partnership and outreach process is a two-way street. just as people who are not accustomed to the acronyms and the process need to be involved and educated, members of the transportation community must be open to expanded partner interests and to their processes and expectations. The vital, but elusive, transportation-land use connection demands the special attention of transportation planning officials. An activist role is necessary in state and local economic development to make the land use and transportation connection. States and MPOs can no longer relegate transportation-land use planning to local governments because ISTEA requires consideration of the impact of transportation is decisions on land use. The perceived complexity of the combined air quality and transportation planning process must be simplified if it is to meaningfully include informed citizen involvement. A perception appears to have developed that implementing flexibility is difficult, that ISTEA is complex, and that everything is grinding to a halt. Transportation professionals should concentrate instead on moving forward; taking small, positive steps; and seizing the opportunity that ISTEA presents. It is important to maintain the high level of optimism that accompanied passage of the bill by Congress and to sustain that momentum and commitment. Partnerships The advantages to be derived from ISTEA's flexible funding depend on decisions to be made cooperatively by state and local officials. New partnerships must be developed to transcend the barriers that divide existing power centers. MPO officials should take a new look at the members and constituents of MPOs and seek a new affirmation of the planning and decision-making process in metropolitan areas. State officials must also make a similar effort because states are major Conference Findings /23 stakeholders and should be major players in the MPO process if this effort is expected to work. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must become an active partner throughout the combined transportation-air quality planning process. A conflict is perceived between the regulatory role of EPA and the resulting desire of agency officials to stay at arm's length throughout the conformity and state implementation plan (SIP) development processes and the desire of members of the transportation community to have EPA as an active and outspoken partner whose expectations and needs are fully expressed at the outset. It is possible for EPA officials to be involved throughout the process of developing SIPs by reviewing assumptions and providing feedback without compromising the agency's regulatory function. This informal advisor role should result in a better plan and reduce the likelihood of plan disapproval by EPA because of faulty basic planning assumptions, emission inventories, or forecasts. Real risk of decision gridlock confronts those choosing to ignore the mutual veto powers in ISTEA and the Clean Air Act, creating pressure for emerging partnership roles to be reconciled quickly. ISTEA pro- vides states and MPOs with veto power over transportation improvement programs (TIPs), longrange plans, conformity, and SIPs. Unless state and MPO officials agree to share information, ideas, desired outcomes, and indeed, money, that veto power threatens to bring the process to a standstill. Planning Process The newly required management systems and planning products must be integrated in order to fully benefit from their development. The management system process must be integrated with long-range plans and TIPS, but first, aspects of each element that need to be integrated must be identified. More discussion and research, particularly on management systems, is required. Clearly, management systems will provide the data on system conditions and performance that are necessary to planning and programming. Particular attention should be given to product phasing for which, in the initial stages, ISTEA has not provided for sequential development (e.g. state and MPO plans are due concurrently). Compliance with requirements may need to be phased if existing schedules will not 24 / MOVING URBAN AMERICA accommodate ISTEA objectives. The implementation schedules in ISTEA may hinder establishment of the desired linkages and integration among the different management systems, the metropolitan and state long- range plans, and the programming TIPS. Flexibility is necessary in implementing the requirements of ISTEA to ensure that the benefits of coordination are achieved and that a haphazard job does not result from simply trying to meet the legislative deadlines. Transition problems may arise from the absence of federal guidance, particularly in the case of TIP development without conformity guid- ance from EPA and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Some real transition problems exist. A key example is the current problems with developing 1992-1993 TIPs and long-range plans in the absence of final EPA conformity guidance. In this case, how does one proceed with plan development while anticipating pending regulations and not find oneself in the precarious and untenable position of anticipating too much and being required to go back and rework something at the last minute? These are practical issues that must be resolved. Federal Role Federal guidance should be general and flexible, supportive of local initiatives undertaken in advance of regulation, and encouraging of experimentation. At this stage, federal guidance should generally be flexible and not prescriptive and should encourage experimentation and inclusion of nonstandard, nontraditional groups in the process. At the same time, once the guidance is finalized, it should be administered in such a way as to foster, not undermine, the innovative local efforts transportation planners are being encouraged to undertake as a result of flexible guidance. In essence, FHWA and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) officials are being flexible and encouraging innovation, and transportation planners are taking the time to form solutions that are appropriate to individual states. One concern is that after a 2-year delay, prescriptive guidance will be issued that might require damaging rollbacks in state and local procedures. A key finding is thus to commend federal representatives who are carrying forward the intent of ISTEA itself by being flexible in allowing Conference Findings / 25 innovative solutions and to plead that they not adopt regulations that would undermine that flexibility. Federal agencies should be clearinghouses to provide timely exchange of ideas, sharing of diverse experiences, and reports of successful and failed experiments with the revised planning process. The need to get the word out early on what is and what is not working is critical. The knowledge and experience of different areas should be disseminated and shared widely. It is also important to have staff exchanges. Federal, state, and local employees assigned to work in different levels of government can share their knowledge with the host agencies while gaining knowledge to share with their home agencies, all in an effort to make the new partnerships work. Federal agencies should act as catalysts and provide resources for needed research and technical assistance to upgrade analytical tools and training vitally needed by the planning profession. A new commit- ment is needed for public, private, and academic reinvestment in staff training at the federal, state, regional, and local levels. This is a difficult challenge right now, in light of the nationwide budget crises. Research and technical assistance are necessary to upgrade analyti- cal tools with a particular focus on the needs of customers. Opening up the partnership will result in more scrutiny of the data and methodology that support transportation decisions. As a result, the partners need took that provide concrete data and justifications to support the positions that are being taken, make multimodal trade- offs, and document the impact of decisions. SUMMARY OF WORKSHOP FINDINGS State Transportation Plans (STPs) State plans should define the roles of the governor, the state department of transportation, MPOS, and other state, regional, and local agencies contributing to their development and implementation. The development of state plans should be a collaborative process reflecting the role of each partner in transportation system development and operation. The roles, however, must be understood. STPs should be strategic planning documents in which alternative strategies are evaluated in the context of the 23 factors in ISTEA, 26 / MOVING URBAN AMERICA management systems, and metropolitan long-range plans. STPs should define a 20-year vision and set forth performance objectives to measure progress made toward attaining that vision. The plan should be the statewide integrating document for broad statewide policies, management systems, metropolitan plans, and SIPs. Availability of financial resources should guide the plan, but not constrain it. The 23 factors defined in ISTEA. for statewide consideration will serve to identify a frame for policy development. Development of STPs should be both a bottom-up and a top-down process through integration. Neither states nor MPOs should dominate the planning process In the partnership model, each has an appropriate role to play. State officials must begin by defining a statewide policy context and disseminating policy directions to guide the development of metropolitan long-range plans. The strategic documents would be guided by the considerations noted previously and include a 20-year financial estimate and information from the management systems to aid the regions. Metropolitan long-range plans would then be developed in a manner consistent with and building from the policy directions, management systems, and financial input from the state. These inputs would be integrated with the policies of the area to develop 20-year metropolitan plans. The metropolitan plans would then be integrated into a statewide planning document along with interregional and rural inputs. From the beginning, STPs must include a strategy for adoption. The complexity of the management system and planning process argues for state plans to be accompanied by explicit adoption strategies that involve the stakeholders, ensure the development of a consensus for approval, and lead directly to the implementation of planned programs and activities. Adoption strategies must be broad enough to include legislatures and governors. The National Highway System (NHS) remains the single most domi- nant element of any state's plan. The strategy for the definition and improvement of NHS must grow from the overall state and MPO planning process. The problem herein is that the process for defining NHS is under way in each state as an outgrowth of the functional reclassification of the network. Important decisions are thus being made outside the partnership context and without the overall policy framework required by ISTEA. The concern is that the development of NHS is too integral to state and metropolitan planning efforts to Conference Findings /27 receive so little policy or public attention. This oversight must be addressed as states move from classification to designation. State Implementation Plans SIPs must be integrated with state and regional transportation plans. SIPs cannot stand alone. SIPs are targeted at the achievement of a specific federal air quality standard. They only cover 1 of the 23 factors for statewide planning identified in ISTEA. Unlike state plans and metropolitan plans, SIPs do not consider related or external factors, such as congestion, open space,, access to employment, or the needs of the economically disadvantaged. Inclusion of broad quality- of-life factors and community goals is the province of the long-range plan. SIPs should be consistent with these overall goals and policies. The schedules for the processes may not be compatible, requiring amendments to SIPs to ensure consistency. SIPs must be developed through a partnership process that results in feasible and defensible transportation targets. A sequential process for air quality and transportation planning is not enough. The process and legal requirements are so complex and the impact of technical decisions so great that the partnership must be convened at the beginning of the process. It should include development of the emissions inventory and setting of emission reduction targets among stationary, mobile, and area source. The transportation community must involve itself in these decisions lest the result be transportation control measure (TCM) targets that are unachievable by any means now available to states or MPOS. TCM plans must be developed in a partnership between air quality and transportation interests. TCM plans need to be developed in the context of the overall transportation planning partnership. Plans must be focused on measures that can be shown to have an air quality impact, can be paid for by the partners, and can demonstrably be implemented, instead of on vague sea of measures that lack real commitment or quantifiable air quality benefits. A distinction should be made between the conformity determination for TIPs and the determination of air quality conformity for long-range plans. The rigid fiscal and project definition constraints underlying TIP conformity are appropriate in a document in which federal funds are committed to a particular transportation improvement. To constrain 28 / MOVING URBAN AMERICA long-range plans to the same degree would undermine the exploration of alternatives that should be encouraged at the planning stage and would conflict with the need to examine alternatives in the project- level environmental document. Plan conformity should not be at the specific project or program level. A specific research agenda should be promulgated to provide better understanding of the promise and limitations associated with transpor- tation and air quality trade-offs. One of the great frustrations expressed in this area was the paucity of reliable information on the impacts of decisions that must be made in the air quality process. Research needs to be conducted to guide planners and politicians on the effectiveness of the various TCMs and control strategies available to them. Management Systems The six management systems required by ISTEA must be viewed as an interrelated package, not as stand-alone products. Taken as a group, the management systems can be seen as a multimodal package in which the management of the multimodal transportation system is inventoried and assessed in terms of both the conditions of its asset base and system performance. These systems represent processes that are inputs to the ISTEA plans and programs and can provide the information needed to develop priorities and make investment decisions. Although the asset-based management systems dealing with highway pavement, safes, and bridges are fairly well understood, they should be integrated, especially with respect to data requirements. Data needs for all these systems must be defined and collected through similar integrated reporting packages. If integrated, the asset-based management systems can be toed to define the investment necessary to sustain the existing transportation system. Congestion management systems (CMSs) are key systems in the overall planning decision-making process. CMSs can serve as the higher order systems in which system performance for the multimodal transportation system is evaluated and improved. The CMS vision must be broad enough to encompass the mobility needs of all of the customers of the metropolitan transportation system. This system must go beyond level of service measurements and narrow transportation system management techniques to address broadly defined user needs and market demands. Conference Findings / 29 CMSs should be developed through a five-step process that entails system definition, assessment of service levels, definition of user needs for both people and goods, identification and integration of external impacts, and multimodal solutions and recommendations. The process would comprise the following steps: 1. Define the multimodal, multiuser statewide and metropolitan systems. 2. Assess system performance and operating characteristics, and identify deficiencies. 3. Examine travel demands by user group and market needs. 4. Identify nonuser and external impacts of systems on the region. 5. Develop multimodal solutions and recommendations, including capital, operating, and market-oriented strategies. Public transportation and intermodal management systems should follow a similar process, with performance elements of transit systems being integrated into the CMSS. Similarly, intertmodal management systems should be focused on the performance of intertmodal transfers and included in the multimodal CMSS. The management systems should be integrated in a multimodal manner. CMSs can be the integrating systems for the performance elements of the transit and intermodal systems. The intermodal system should be focused especially on freight movement, an area in need of more attention. Transportation Improvement Programs State and metropolitan TIPs must be conformed with one another through an interactive process based on mutually defined and accepted funding targets. Although participants in this workshop did agree that the TIP development process should be iterative, there was considerable debate on whether the metropolitan TIP should automatically form the basis for the statewide TIP in metropolitan areas. Participants agreed that MPOs did need to be supplied with funding estimates against which to program. Project selection should flow from TIPS, requiring proportional sharing of obligational authority and development of funding levels based on authorizations to prevent overprogramming. States should undertake collaborative efforts to explain fiscal constraints, apportion- 30/ MOVING URBAN AMERICA ment levels, and obligation authority to MPOs and local entities through ISTEA conferences in each state. These conferences can lead to agreements on funding priorities and processes for distributing Surface Transportation Program funds. Technical tools for financial planning and project evaluation must be developed to enable multimodal programming and prioritization. ISTEA requires immediate development of fiscally constrained and multimodal TIPs in priority order. The industry cannot wait for the development of sophisticated new tools. The near-term focus must therefore be on widely disseminating information on experiences in the industry, both successes and failures. The FHWA electronic bulletin board and federal, state, and local staff exchanges are two possible means of facilitating information transfer. Special efforts are required to make the TIP process accessible and meaningful to the broader range of participants that must now be involved. The new requirement for public participation in TIP development suggests that states and MPOs must affirmatively reach out to involve people and groups in the process. Consequently, the process, which is arcane and complex, must be translated into meaningful terms. Metropolitan Long-Range Plans Long-range plans should define an integrated multimodal and inter- modal transportation system. ISTEA calls for MPOs to define a metro- politan transportation system. The ISTEA required planning factors extend that system to include all modes, as well as the connections between modes. Although ISTEA stipulated a realistic and implementable plan, this requirement should serve to reinforce accountability and stimulate advocacy, and not to constrain the long-range vision in a region. The new requirements on financial reasonableness in ISTEA force the long- range plan to move beyond a wish list to the difficult choices between system maintenance and enhancement and system expansion. If the plan can serve to focus a community's attention on these choices, it can also serve as a base for advocacy for the resources required to imple- ment a new vision for the community. The multiple planning factors enumerated in ISTEA imply that the metropolitan plan must extend beyond a narrow transportation focus Conference Findings /31 to embrace land use, air quality, and other social and environmental goals. Although MPOs may not have the authority or the expertise to deal directly with all 15 required planning factors, ISTEA does require consideration of a broad array of issues and concerns in the plan. MPOs and states should collaborate to convene the partners that represent these interest and concerns so that the plan becomes more than a physical facility development effort. Analytical methods must be developed to improve long-range trans- portation planning, particularly with respect to systems-level analysis; integration of transportation, airshed, and land use models; and the measurement of quality-of-life variables. Improvements in long-range planning are possible, given the state of current practice. Research does need to be conducted in system-level, multimodal analysis; improving the relationship among the various models, methods, and means of collecting data to support the models; and developing an understanding of customer concerns and needs. These user-based data needs are particularly critical with respect to quality-of-life concerns such as safety, community cohesion, aesthetics, and environmental balance. CONCLUSION From the first planning session for the Moving Urban America Confer- ence, FTA and FHWA officials expressed their hope that the conference could result in some tangible guidance to them as the federal members of the partnership move to implement the new legislation. These find- ings are intended to provide some of that guidance. The findings are also intended to challenge states, regional agencies, transit operators, local governments, and advocacy groups to respond in a creative manner to the challenges presented in ISTEA. Most important, the findings reinforce the notion that the mobility needs of urban America can only be addressed through a concerted partnership that reaches beyond traditional roles and responsibilities to embrace a broader role for transportation in addressing a spectrum of key community concerns. Complete reports of the conference workshops are presented next. The richness and variety of these reports indicates that areas around the country are responding to the new flexibility in positive and diverse manners, reinforcing the findings presented here. Workshop Reports State Transportation Plans CHAIR: Gloria J. Jeff RECORDER: Joan Borucki PARTICIPANTS: John Bosley, Sarah C. Campbell, Anne P. Canby, A. Ray Chamberlain, Janet Cyril, Frank L. Danchetz, Rob Draper, Hal D. Hiemstra, Terry Kraft, Peter M. Lafen, Leon N. Larson, Ronald D. McCready, Bruce D. McDowell, John P. Poorman, Kelly K. Sinclair, Wayne G. Spaulding, Lou P. Venech, Paul L. Verchinski, H. F. Vick, Thomas R. Weeks TITLE 23, SECTION 135, of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) requires each state to develop a long- range transportation plan for all areas of the state. The process for developing the plan must provide for consideration of all modes of transportation and must be continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive to the degree appropriate, based on the complexity of transportation problems. The state long-range plan must be developed in cooperation with metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and Native American tribal governments. States must provide all interested parties with a reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed plan. CONTEXT In addition to the state plan, ISTEA requires MPOs to continue to produce long-range transportation plans. The metropolitan plans have been required for a number of years, whereas the requirement for state 35 36 / MOVING URBAN AMERICA transportation plans (STPS) is new. State long-range plans must be coordinated with metropolitan plans. In addition, there are 23 factors that must, as a minimum, be addressed in the state transportation planning process. The factors cover air quality, energy, water quality, land us, land development, international border crossings, rural economic development, and tourism. The main points from the workshop discussion on the actors to be involved, contents of and process for developing the long-range plan, and integration of the plan with other plans and programs are pre- sented here as a table of contents for a state long-range plan. TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR A LONG-RANGE PLAN The actors and their roles in the planning process would be defined in the first chapter of the plan. This partnership should include transit interests, MPOS, local government, and environment and business groups in addition to the traditional "road gang." Citizen participation in state planning should be expanded to include those who have been left out of the process, particularly low-income and minority citizens. The second chapter in the plan would be an outline of the statewide strategic policy issues and performance objectives. Workshop participants agreed that state long-range planning is both a top-down and bottom-up process. Strategic or policy issues were identified for the entire statewide transportation process and system. This would include a vision of where transportation should be in 25 years and what kind of performance objectives and measures of performance should be used to track movement toward achievement of that goal. The community would use the 23 factors that have been identified in the act as a basis for identifying those strategic and policy issues for inclusion. The third chapter would deal with the broad concept of alternative strategies. In the definition of these broad alternative statewide strategies, the 23 factors would have to be considered, the performance objectives identified previously in this report would be used to measure or evaluate those alternatives, and the constraints associated with financial considerations would have to be considered. The workshop group wanted to be sensitive to financial considerations, but did not want dollars to drive the planning. Because financial resources are limited, transportation planners must think through what that means in terms of alternative strategies. State Transportation Plans / 37 Chapter 4 would involve the integration of the management systems that are called for in the act, the metropolitan long-range plan, and state implementation plans (SIPs). This is the point at which the process changes from a top-down to a bottom-up process. Once the policy issues and alternative strategies are laid out, MPOs should develop the specifics of their plan consistent with the statewide policies and performance objectives and add policies that are unique to that metropolitan area. That would be the basis for developing a metropolitan long-range plan. Inputs would include the management systems, and with the requirements in the Clean Air Act Amendments, planners should also consider what to include in SIPS. Participants agreed that when the SIP, the management systems, and the metropolitan long-range plan were completed, they would then be resubmitted to the state, where they would be synthesized into the STP. The individual components and the components as a whole would be evaluated to ensure that the policies and the performance goals are consistent. If a situation were to occur in which each individual area may, indeed, have been true to those policies and objectives, but they oil did not fit when they all came together, there would be an iterative process in which the state and MPOs would go back and forth until the statewide results, as well as the results desired within each of the metropolitan areas, were achieved. One concern that emerged was the integration of the National Highway System (NHS) into the planning process and the emerging planning partnership. The NHS development process is well under way, but has not included all the partners who are vital to a healthy planning process. Workshops have already been held around the nation to kick off the designation process. The concern is that the development of state plans will occur after the development of the NHS and that the new partners will be brought in for plan development but not for NHS development. The development of the NHS is too integral to state planning efforts to receive so little attention or public participation. The functional classification component of designating the NHS must include the partners in the development of the criteria by which state officials eventually decide what should and should not be included in the NHS. The group was fortunate to include an individual who then has to present the state long-range plan to the governor and the legislature for approval. The fifth chapter in the process would involve formation of an adoption strategy to identify specific actions to be taken to ensure a 38 / MOVING URBAN AMERICA consensus for approval and implementation of the programs and activ- ities that have been identified in the plan. Participants agreed that a critical step is to identify the stakeholders and involve them in the process from the beginning. Simply having stakeholders involved in the beginning, however, does not guarantee the consensus that is needed at the end. h is necessary to identify a specific strategy and then ensure that pragmatic steps are taken toward implementation throughout the life of the plan. State Implementation Plans CHAIR: Hank Dittmar PARTICIPANTS: Carol T. Adams, Ronald D. Althoff, J. Barry Barker, Melissa M. Bender, Daniel Brand, Cynthia J. Burbank, Frank Carroll, James Q. Duane, Donald J. Emerson, Robert Fogel, Fred M. Gilliam, Janet S. Hathaway, Arnold M. Howitt, Kenneth H. Lloyd, Ian C. MacGillivray, Roderick D. Moe, Sr., Abbe Marner, Robert E. Paaswell, M. Susan Pederson, William L. Schroeer, Sonny Timmerman, Joanne M. Walsh THIS IS THE REPORT of the workshop group that focused on air quality, state implementation plans (SIPs), and the process of conforming transportation plans and programs to the Clean Air Act. Despite their differences, workshop participants were able to reach consensus on a number of key points. The group met three times in 2 days to discuss the context and partnerships in the air quality - transportation partnership, the process of preparing SIPS, and integration of SIPs with other required products of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and the Clean Air Act. Background information on air quality requirements is provided, the evolving context of air quality planning is discussed, and challenges and findings in the air quality area are presented. 39 40 / MOVING URBAN AMERICA BACKGROUND The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) were characterized by many attendees of the Moving Urban America Conference as being as significant as ISTEA in altering transportation policy for the nation. CAAA has succeeded in linking air quality considerations with trans- portation planning more closely than ever before. CAAA established this new linkage through two requirements: (a) states containing non- attainment areas must update their plan for attainment compliance with federal air quality standards (SIP); and (b) the requirement that metropolitan planning organizations (MPOS) demonstrate that their plans and programs contribute to the process of attainment (the conformity process) was strengthened. Although the workshop was focused on the preparation of SIPS, the group also discussed the conformity process at some length. The Clean Air Act required that states update their SIPs on passage of the act. The act required that most states complete the following activities by November 1992: an updated emissions inventory, rules for reasonably available control technology bar rn:o()r emission sources, and interim procedures for assessing conformity. By November 1993, states are required to submit a SIP revision that documents a set of control measures to achieve a 15 percent hydrocarbon reduction by 1996, a permit program for stationary sources, certified emissions statements from stationary sources, an ozone attainment plan, adopted contingency measures, and an annual tracking program. These requirements are imposed an air quality agencies at the state level, but the Clean Air Act also imposed obligations on MPOs to demonstrate that their plans and programs conform to the act. To do this, MPOs must demonstrate, during the interim period between passage of the act and promulgation of regulations, that the long-range plan and transportation improvement program (TIP) contribute to reasonable further progress toward attainment and that they provide for the expeditious implementation of adopted transportation control measures (TCMS) in the SIP. After the promulgation of regulations, the conformity process must also show that the plans and programs con- tribute to the 15 percent reduction in hydrocarbon emissions called for in the SIP. State Implementation Plans / 41 AIR QUALITY CONTEXT AND PARTNERSHIPS The first workshop session was focused primarily on definition of the actors involved on the air quality and transportation planning pro- cesses and on establishment of partnerships to develop the required products. The group's discussion in this area was focused on the lack of understanding between the air quality community and the transporta- tion community with regard to the effectiveness of transportation measures to improve air quality and the lack of common planning practices and procedures. Important actors in the process were identified at the federal, state, and regional levels. Federal Workshop participants expressed the need for a partnership at the federal level involving the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Many participants expressed frustration that federal agencies involved in air quality often had conflicting priorities and offered conflicting guidance to state and regional agencies. The sometimes adversary relationship between EPA and FHWA was cited. The group also believed that federal agencies should join the partnership with state and regional agencies. State The key entities at the state level were identified as the state departments of transportation and the state air quality agencies, with governors and legislatures also playing important roles. Here again, a conflict was perceived between the policy guidance from the governor and state elected officials and the political support for tough air quality measures. The need for an iterative process between state agencies was also stressed, particularly with regard to the setting of targets and the definition of control measures. Regional At the regional level, MPOs were identified as the convenor of a partnership focused on definition and implementation of TCMs and 42 / MOVING URBAN AMERICA the integration of air quality measures with mobility and other commu- nity goals. MPOs should bring to the table a broad and diverse group of interests. In government, the SIP and conformity process must involve federal agency, state agencies, cities and counties, transit operators, ridesharing agencies, and regional air quality districts. Nongovernment entities that should be involved include employers, operators of stationary sources, shopping centers, environmental groups, special interest groups such as classic car collectors, representatives of low-income and minority groups, and the public at large. The workshop consensus was that these groups should be consulted from the outset from development of the inventory through identification and implementation of TCMS. CHALLENGES Workshop participants identified three major challenges that have been encountered in many parts of the country but still need to be addressed on a national level. The first challenge is the uncompromising legal deadlines for the preparation and adoption of SIPs and the conformity of TIPs versus the uncertainty of the impacts of the decisions made by transportation planners. Put most simply, there is no hard evidence that TCMs can deliver the clean air improvements that are required from them. In- creasingly, these measures appear to be a weak reed. Members of the transportation community are thus asking elected officials to take political risks by adopting TCMs without providing the analytical underpinnings that give officials the confidence that TCMs will achieve the desired results. This leads to the second challenge. Although the group believed that there is broad support by the public and elected officials for air quality, that support breaks down when specific TCMs are defined. Support for air quality does not necessarily translate to support for pervasive changes in life-style or measures with evident economic impacts. The third major challenge is directly related to the first two. To get around political problems, one must include all the players in the discussion process, so that classic car collectors, environmental groups, big and small employers, and shopping center developers, to name just a few, are all involved in a trade-off analysis from the outset. Only in this way can one hope to keep the elected officials from being placed in a lose-lose situation. State Implementation Plans / 43 WORKSHOP FINDINGS The workshop group reached a consensus in five main areas. Integration of SIPs First, participants found that SIPs must be integrated into the planning process through amendment of the SIP or the long-range plan, if necessary. It is unfortunate that the deadlines do not allow for that because SIPs must be adopted by November of 1993 in most areas. However, the SIP as an air quality document cannot stand alone. Consideration of externalities, cost-effectiveness, mobility impacts, and equity are not included in SIPs in the way that they should be in the long-range plans. Consequently, there must be an integration; longrange plans must be sufficiently comprehensive and detailed to include consideration of SIPS. Consideration of the air quality community must also be included in long-range plans. SIP Partnerships The second notion on which workshop participants reached a consensus is that the development of SIPs must be a partnership process that leads to feasible and defensible transportation targets. This has specific implications. The transportation community and others must be involved in the air quality community's effort to conduct the emissions inventory and set targets for compliance so that when the targets are set for mobile sources, point sources, and area sources, it is understood that the targets are achievable and feasible within the various realms. This consultation must take place so that one sector is not just given the remaining responsibilities after the air-quality community con- sults with the other sectors. This consultation process must happen at the state level because it is the states' responsibility to set those targets. The mobile source target should not be residual, set by assigning to mobile sources the balance of emissions reduction needed to achieve the federal standard, regardless of whether the resulting target is feasible. 44 / MOVING URBAN AMERICA TCM Partnerships The third finding of workshop participants is that TCM plans must also be developed through the same type of partnership process. MPOs should play key roles in those partnerships. The ability of TCMs to make dramatic air quality improvements is suspect, and both the air quality and transportation communities must work together to avoid over-promising in these plans. There was a soft consensus that the transportation agencies-the MPOs-should be designated to develop the TCM plans, but all groups need to be involved. Resulting from a lack of understanding of each other's process, the fear on one side is that if the air quality community develops TCMS, it will propose plans that cannot be paid for, that cannot be implemented, and will not work. Similarly, the air quality community fears that if the transportation community is in charge, the plan will not meet air quality objectives, will not be implemented, and so on. Again, if all work together, the needed linkages will be made. The group believed that the negotiated process and mediation ideas presented at the conference by James Kunde (see resource paper on partnerships by Kunde and Dale F. Bertsch) could serve as promising models for the development of the TCMS. These mediation efforts could be used to bring the advocacy groups and the business community to the table with local government and the regulators and engage all parties in a negotiation to win. The representative from private industry suggested that a focus on incentives rather than regulations would result in more business community involvement early on in the process when it is most helpful. Conformity The fourth finding is that EPA. and FHWA. officials must clearly define how the conformity process of long-range plans differs from that of TIPS. Air quality conformity for TIPs involves a direct quantitative comparison of emissions resulting from a program of projects versus a no-build scenario. This approach is well-suited for TIPS, which represent a commitment of federal funds to a specific set of transportation projects. A similar approach to conformity of long-range plans would needlessly and fatally constrain the metropolitan long-range plans required by ISTEA. State Implementation Plans / 45 The long-range plans required by ISTEA. should include alternative scenarios, urban goals, investment strategies, and growth patterns. Their inclusion, however, is antithetical to the concept of posing a program of projects that lasts 20 years and modeling and conforming such a 20-year program of projects. The group strongly recommends that the conformity regulations take into account the difference between a plan and a program to allow planning and alternatives in the process. Perhaps this can be accom- plished by allowing unconstrained needs analyses and scenarios, which would not be subject to air quality conformity. Research Agenda Finally, a specific and important research agenda needs to be pro- mulgated in the transportation and air quality area to resolve some of the uncertainty over the impact of required decisions. Such an agenda should include an examination not only of emissions but also of how motor vehicles operate on the freeways and streets of this country. Changes in fleet mix over time, the use of old, new, and high-emitting vehicles in the fleet, and vehicle speeds in actual operation should also be examined. Research should be undertaken on how high-occupancy vehicle lanes and bypasses, ramp meters, and signalization actually operate in the context of metropolitan transportation systems. Research should also be conducted on the impact of price and market variables on mode split, time of travel, and trip making over time. This broad research agenda on data collection and travel modeling is essential if transportation professionals are to continue down the current path: ever-more-finite analysis of the air quality and congestion relief impacts of transportation decisions along with an increasing focus on non- capacity-increasing approaches to problems. CONCLUSION After 9 hr of working together in probably the most divisive area in transportation-the transportation-air quality arena-this diverse group learned how to trust and communicate with one another. This microcosm thus reinforced the basic finding of the conference: if one takes the risk to open the process, anything becomes achievable. Management Systems COCHAIRS: Roger L. Schrantz, Salvatore J. Bellomo RECORDER: Joel Markowitz PARTICIPANTS: Jeffrey Boothe, James Philip Boyd, Jeffrey R. Brooks, Donald H. Camph, Chester E. Colby, Ralph E. Comer, Andrew C. Cotugno, Frank L. Danchetz, Edward R. Fleischman, Myrna Griffin, David Hartgen, Kevin E. Heanue, Thomas L. Jenkins, David B. Keever, Robert Kochanowski, Linda L. Lawson, Michael D. Meyer, Debra L. Miller, Marion R. Poole, Sharon L. Reichard, William Roberts, George E. Schoener, Darrell K. Williams ON THE CROSSCUTTING ISSUES, participants in the workshop on management systems strongly believed that an activist role is needed in state and local economic development to make the land use transportation connection that is vital to the development of transportation plans and programs. States and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOS) must not believe that local governments are solely responsible for land use planning. They must become active participants in the transportation-land use connection because it has a great influence on quality of life, the environment, and mobility. Second, participants believed that the products of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) [e.g., long range plans, transportation improvement programs (TIPs), state implementation programs (SIPs), and management system information] must be integrated. However, the aspects of each product that should be integrated 46 Management Systems / 47 must be identified. This will require more discussion and re- search, particularly in the area of management systems. FINDINGS The six management systems called for in ISTEA are as follows: Highway pavement, Bridges, Highway safety, Congestion/mobility, Public transportation, and Intermodal. Their potential interrelationships are shown in Figure 1. The circle was used in the figure because the logos of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and most state DOTs include circles. In the center of the circle, a focus group, a client or clients, is necessary. Transportation planners must understand how the six management systems in ISTEA relate to the clients (e.g., customers, transportation operators, or policy makers) they serve. Planners also must know how the management systems are interrelated. Workshop participants discussed how the highway pavement, bridge, highway safety, congestion (which was broadened to include mobility), public transportation, and intermodal management systems might interrelate with clients. These systems also relate to each other in that information will be exchanged among them. Some interrelation- ships among the systems must be captured in serving various client groups. The management systems share a common set of necessary, general elements: Goals and objectives; Performance criteria and standards; A description of the types of policy, plan, program, and opera- tional decisions that the system supported (decisions and decision makers should be identified); A description of the mode-specific (plant management) decisions and operational system decisions; An orientation toward producing information for assessing existing and future (20+ years) conditions and management issues; 48 / MOVING URBAN AMERICA Click HERE for graphic. FIGURE 1 Integrated management systems. Data collection and inventory; Analysis based on performance criteria and standards; Alternatives to address existing and future problems and deficiencies; Testing of alternatives against performance criteria; and Information to aid decision makers in evaluation and priority setting. Although workshop participants acknowledged the importance of the information being used in decision making at various levels and the need to verify that the system was working to produce the information, they did not see the need for stand-alone plans for each area. The management systems should be reviewed to ensure that proper factors and processes have been addressed. Participants agreed that the six management areas should be inte- grated to recognize the relevant interrelationships and that monitoring is a necessary function of the management systems. Management Systems / 49 Interrelationships Among the Systems and Products With respect to the interrelationship of the management systems with the various other products of ISTEA and the Clean Air Act Amendment of 1990, the workshop group created a process (as shown in Figure 2) with the following general features: Shared state and local goals and objectives should drive the man- agement system performance measures and standards and the state and MPO long-range plans, TIPS, and transportation components of SIPS. Click HERE for graphic. FIGURE 2 Planning and programming process. *Feedback would also include stationary/area sources. 50 / MOVING URBAN AMERICA The goals and objectives should be formed with early and continuous involvement of a diverse group of the public that represents the customers to be served and that reflects movement of both people and goods. State and MPO long-range plans should be developed using a top-down and bottom-up approach with each state and MPO working it out on the basis of their individual situations. At the long-range plan stage, management systems should provide support, and there should be public involvement and feedback. The state TIPs and MPO TIPs should be developed on the basis of financially attainable plans, inputs from the performance-based man- agement systems, and with interaction from the public. TIPs should then be incorporated in the SIPS, and a conformity check should be made with SIPS. Feedback, as necessary, should be made to TIPs or to stationary sources (including land use and area sources) or to both on the basis of consideration of cost-effectiveness. Public involvement should occur before an action plan and program are implemented. Federal Guidance Participants concluded that federal agencies should initially provide broad rule making, followed by specific guidance and workshops for each system. Of greatest concern to the group were congestion/ mobility, public transportation, and intermodal/multimodal management systems. The highway pavement, bridge, and highway safety management systems are already well established. Congestion Management Systems Five key steps were identified for congestion/mobility management systems: 1. Define the multimodal/multiuser system(s). 2. Develop the level of service for each system, and identify any related deficiencies and operating characteristics. Management Systems / 51 3. Examine, by user group, the mobility of people and goods for the systems. 4. Examine nonuser and external effects of each system (including air quality). 5. Define multimodal solutions to correct the most critical user and stakeholder (including nonuser) needs. Advanced technology [e.g., intelligent vehicle-highway systems (IVHS)] and access management should be included in these systems. Public Transportation Management Systems For public transportation management systems, participants recom- mended following the five steps identified for congestion/mobility management systems. Guidance should be provided in the following six areas: Plant (mode-specific) management, Safety and security, Multimodal operations, IVHS, Intermodal operations, and Equity. Intermodal Management Systems Intermodal/multimodal management systems should also include the five steps identified for congestion/mobility management systems and should be focused on addressing the following topics. Passenger movement on multimodal systems, Freight and goods movement, Goods movement by market segment, Connection and linkages, Paucity of information, IVHS, and Economic productivity and efficiency. 52 / MOVING URBAN AMERICA Challenges Workshop participants identified three challenges for management systems. First, the vision for congestion management systems should be broadened. The systems should act as key driving systems and include the mobility concerns of various clients and customers as measured through monitoring of multimodal system service, the necessary market research on clients, and integration of air quality assessment and performance monitoring. This is particularly important for nonattainment areas and should be considered for attainment areas as well. Second, staff members must think in multimodal terms about cus- tomers in order to move from the business-as-usual approach in some states and local areas. Third, federal rule making should be sufficiently flexible to permit state and local governments to respond to ISTEA on the basis of circumstances in individual areas. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS Congestion Management Some conference participants believed that congestion management is almost on a higher level than the other management systems because of its functional nature. They believed that congestion management must be implemented immediately, before any long-range planning, simply because of the aspects of the requirements to measure long-range plans. It has to be done in a broad way, beyond what we are accustomed to thinking about existing system performance measures. Much has been said about congestion management being measured by level of service, by traffic volume, but a number of conference participants believed strongly that congestion management, if done properly, must be based on another measure, such as mobility by client group. Plans must be based on user and market information as well as on simple traffic patterns. Mobility is clearly a big issue. It is a way of examining congestion management that is different from a level-of-service measure Transportation planners must be creative in developing measures to reflect the relative mobility levels of different client groups when management systems are developed under ISTEA. Management Systems / 53 Planning and Programming Process Conference participants asked whether the process shown in Figure 2 can be accomplished within a reasonable time frame; how many alter- natives can realistically be evaluated for long range plans, TIPS, and others; and how the process can aid development of long-range plans, TIPS, and SIPS. Many alte