For  instance, about 52 percent of the 381 MPOs represent populations of fewer  than 200,000 people; 36 percent of MPOs represent populations of 200,000  to 999,999 people; and 11 percent of MPOs represent populations of 1  million or more people. Beyond the requirements common to all MPOs, some MPOs have  additional planning requirements. These factors  require that the metropolitan planning process provide for consideration  of projects and strategies that will    support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by  enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency; increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and  nonmotorized users; increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and  nonmotorized users; increase the accessibility and mobility of people and freight;   protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation,  improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between  transportation improvements and state and local planned growth and  economic development patterns;   enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system,  across and between modes, for people and freight;   promote efficient system management and operation; and    emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system. MPOs Vary Considerably in Terms of Capacity, Responsibilities, and Range of Activities

		The Staffing, Financial, and Technical Capacity of MPOs Varies Significantly

The staff size and structure of MPOs vary significantly. Some MPOs are  supported by one or two staff, while a few have over 100 full or part-time  staff. Some MPOs are housed and staffed by a local jurisdiction  (such as a city or county government) within its boundaries, others by a  regional planning council, and still others operate independently. According to our survey respondents,  about 80 percent of MPOs receive a majority of their planning funds from  these federal sources. As a result, the type of model used by  MPOs also varies. Project implementation. MPOs Face Resource, Authority, and Technical Challenges That Impact Their Ability to Conduct Transportation Planning

		MPOs Report Funding and Staffing Limitations

MPOs we surveyed and interviewed cited several funding challenges that  impact their ability to conduct transportation planning. About 85 percent  of all MPOs responding to our survey cited the lack of transportation  planning funding as a challenge to transportation planning. About half of the survey respondents  cited lack of trained staff as a challenge in carrying out the federal  requirements for transportation planning. Lack of Technical Capacity Makes It Difficult for MPOs to Meet Increasingly Complex Requirements

MPOs also face technical challenges, in part because the travel demand  modeling required to forecast future growth and needs has become more  complicated. Because the federal certification is focused on compliance, not outcomes,  it is difficult to determine whether federal oversight is improving  transportation planning. Most MPOs we interviewed generally view the federal certification reviews  as pro forma in nature and place a greater value on informal assistance  from the federal government. This may be due, in  part, to the limited number of staff at FHWA and FTA. In reviewing  these proposals or suggestions, we identified several recurring changes, or  options, that could address some of the resource, authority, and technical  challenges facing MPOs. Increasing Flexibility in Use of Federal Funds

Creating an expanded or clarified definition of eligibility for the use of  transportation planning funds could allow MPOs to utilize planning funds  in ways that best meet the needs of the area. Other proposals include changing the legal definition of MPOs to realign  the MPO planning process with current capacity and planning needs. Moreover, many of the MPOs we interviewed agreed that federal  government investment in modeling and data gathering is necessary to  ensure greater reliability in travel demand forecasting across MPOs and to  help account for the increasing complexity of transportation forecasting  and data needs in urban areas. Matter for Congressional Consideration

Congress should consider making MPO transportation planning more  performance-based—for example, by identifying specific transportation  outcomes for transportation planning and charging the U.S. Department of  Transportation with assessing MPOs’ progress in achieving these  outcomes in the certification review process. Additionally, we interviewed representatives from industry associations,  as well as MPO, Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Federal Highway  Administration (FHWA), and DOT officials to clarify MPO planning  responsibilities, identify transportation planning challenges, and assess  how DOT provides oversight for MPOs and the extent to which this  improves transportation planning. Using these procedures, we obtained an  86 percent response rate.
Why GAO Did This Study

Metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) are responsible for transportation planning in metropolitan areas; however, little is known about what has been achieved by the planning efforts. This congressionally requested report describes (1) the characteristics and responsibilities of MPOs, (2) the challenges that MPOs face in carrying out their responsibilities, (3) how the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) provides oversight for MPOs and the extent to which this improves transportation planning, and (4) the options that have been proposed to enhance transportation planning. To address these objectives, GAO surveyed all 381 MPOs (with an 86 percent response rate) and conducted case studies of eight metropolitan areas and conducted a survey of program managers.

What GAO Found

MPOs vary greatly in terms of capacity and responsibilities. Some MPOs are supported by one or two staff, while others have over 100 staff. While half of MPOs represent populations of less than 200,000, some represent millions. MPOs are typically housed within a regional planning council or a city or county government agency, but also may operate as independent agencies. Most MPOs receive the majority of their planning funds from federal sources, but also receive funds from other sources such as states or localities. The technical capacity of MPOs also varies significantly, both in terms of the type of model used to develop travel demand forecasts and the number of staff available to perform such forecasts. Some MPOs have acquired additional responsibilities, such as project implementation, beyond federal requirements. MPOs cited many challenges in our survey and interviews, primarily related to funding and staffing, authority, and technical capacity. About 85 percent of all MPOs responding to our survey cited the lack of transportation planning funding as a challenge to transportation planning. About half of our survey respondents stated that the lack of flexibility for using federal planning funds inhibits them from conducting comprehensive transportation planning. Staffing constraints, such as limited number of staff and lack of trained staff, also impact MPOs' ability to conduct transportation planning. Finally, according to our survey and interviews, some MPOs lack the technical capacity and data necessary to conduct the type of complex transportation modeling required to meet their planning needs. DOT's Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) work together to oversee MPOs, but given the process-oriented approach of the oversight, it is difficult to determine whether their oversight is improving transportation planning. MPOs representing more than 200,000 in population are subject to federal certification reviews. The certification reviews focus on procedural compliance with planning requirements, not transportation outcomes. MPOs generally view this federal process as pro forma in nature and place a greater value on informal assistance provided by both federal and state governments. Several proposals have been developed by government and industry associations that could address some of the resource, authority, and technical challenges facing MPOs. For example, (1) allowing the use of transportation planning funds for more activities could better meet the needs of some metropolitan areas; (2) varying MPOs' planning requirements and authority or changing the legal definition of MPOs could address varying capacity and planning needs; (3) increasing federal investment in modeling and data gathering could improve the technical capability of MPOs and bring a greater degree of reliability and consistency across MPOs to travel demand forecasting; and (4) making the planning process more performance-based could allow FTA and FHWA to better assess MPOs' progress in achieving specific results.