Regionalism: Pittsburgh and Southwestern Pennsylvania Capstone Seminar in Planning and Government in

1
Regionalism Pittsburgh and Southwestern
PennsylvaniaCapstone Seminar in Planning and
Government in Sustainable Regions

• April 19, 2004

Graduate School of Public and International
Affairs University of Pittsburgh
2
Why study the Southwestern Pennsylvania
Commission?

• Key to addressing regional problems
• Potential to expand role as a regional player
• Provide recommendations to help to improve the
  region

3
Structure of Report

• Assessment of SPC internally and externally
• Benchmarking study
• Recommendations
• Small sidebars

4
Methodology

• Books
• Articles
• Websites
• Public documents
• Student insights from previous coursework
• U.S. Census Bureau
• Phone interviews
• Guest Speakers

5
Why benchmark SPC against other MPOs?

• Benchmarking is the practice of being humble
  enough to admit that someone else is better at
  something and being wise enough to try to learn
  how to match and even surpass them at it.
• --U.S. Department of Transportation, Florida
  Division

• 13 MPOs selected, including SPC
• Benchmark categories
• Governance
• Regional planning
• Communications and technology

6
Special Challenges for SWPA and SPC

• Regional challenges
• Continued population loss
• Aging population
• Relatively low average household income
• Worst-sprawling metro area in the nation, despite
  population loss

• Benchmark MPOs
• Atlanta
• Boston
• Buffalo-Niagara
• Northeast Ohio (Cleveland)
• Denver
• Southeast Michigan (Detroit)
• First Coast (Jacksonville)
• Minneapolis
• North Jersey
• Delaware Valley (Philadelphia)
• METRO (Portland, Ore.)
• East-West (St. Louis)

7
Regionalism in Southwestern Pennsylvania

• I recognize that real sustainable growth will
  come the way of regional collaboration with
  neighboring communities, counties, businesses and
  the commonwealth.
• Dan Onorato, Allegheny County Executive
• Swearing-In Ceremony, January 3, 2004

8
Does the Governance Structure Matter?

• The Federal Highway Act of 1962 and subsequent
  laws stipulated that urbanized areas could
  receive federal and mass transit funds only if
  projects were planned through a comprehensive,
  continuing, and cooperative regional process.
• Most frequently, an MPOs roles, objectives, and
  decision-making processes are lodged within its
  governance and voting structures.
• The under representation of heavily population
  jurisdictions and the over representation of
  sparsely populated areas in many MPOs amplify
  inherent biases in the programmatic rules of
  federal transportation law.
• The answer is YES!

9
Overall Benchmark Findings

• A majority of our MPOs include regional citizens
  and/or regional representatives on their boards,
  but not SPC
• Our best performing MPOs used a weighted voting
  structure for decision-making, not the one
  member, one vote of SPC.
• Some of our most successful MPOs do not have
  Executive Committees thereby power and
  decision-making resides with their full board
  members. Other MPOs hold public Executive
  Committee meetings.
• The best performing MPOs offer operational
  services, such as managing regional assets and
  environmental services, but not SPC.
• Even without federal mandates, our best
  performing benchmark MPOs maintain diverse
  boards, but not SPC.

10
2003 SPC Board MeetingsAttendance Snapshot

• The average member attended 2.4 meetings out of
  7.
• A quarter of the board attended no meetings.
• Of those with zero attendance, 12 of 17 were
  county commissioners or elected chief officials.
• 12 people attended five meetings or more.
• Three slots remained vacant for the entire year.

11
Recommendations for SPC

• Develop a deliberate public participation process
  that influences decision-making.
• Increase the Full Boards role in agenda setting.
• Revise the voting rules to include weighted
  voting structures, so long as they do not violate
  any specifications in their enabling legislation.
• Include attendance requirements for commissioners
  and increase the quorum attendance to a board
  majority, not the current 15 member requirement.
• Require the nominating committee to identify
  regional citizens to replace one seat from each
  member government through by-law amendment.
• Amend charter to include, as full voting members,
  Councils of Government that serve at least
  100,000 people.

12
Regional Planning

• Six primary issues being addressed at the
  regional level
• Land Use
• Transportation
• Environment
• Economic Development
• MPOs as Service Providers
• Project Sustainability

13
Land Use Planning

• Urban Sprawl the low-density urban and
  metropolitan growth increasingly being observed
  adjacent to deteriorating cities (Squires 2002).
• Smart Growth limiting sprawl by creating high
  density mixed-use and pedestrian oriented
  development that promotes efficient land use and
  increases transit ridership (Daniels 2001).

14
Findings

• States are increasingly adopting comprehensive
  land use plans or land use goals and requiring
  local governments to do the same.
• Land use planning is increasingly being done at
  the regional level, with MPOs taking on the
  responsibility of regional land use planning.
• MPOs are initiating innovative programs targeted
  at fostering Smart Growth within their region.
• The Pittsburgh Metropolitan region is the
  worst-sprawling metropolitan area in the nation
  (Brookings Institution 2003).

15
Recommendations

• Southwestern Pennsylvania should initiate
  regional land use planning.
• The State of Pennsylvania should adopt a state
  comprehensive land use plan and require local
  governments to do the same.
• Smart growth policies should be implemented in
  Southwestern PA.

16
Transportation Findings

• MPOs do not differ in the types of projects they
  fund. However, there is a difference in the
  amount allocated to transit.
• SPC lowest at 6.2
• Metro Portland highest at 57
• MPOs are incorporating Smart Growth policies into
  transportation planning.
• MPOs are making transportation planning more
  accessible and understandable to stakeholders.

17
Transportation Recommendations

• SPC should use Smart Growth principles when
  designing and implementing transportation
  projects.
• SPC should focus on making public transit
  accessible to more residents of the region.
• SPC should reallocate more of its funding to
  public transit, and away from highways.
• SPC should make transportation planning and
  projects more accessible to the residents of the
  region by making better use of technology and the
  Internet.
• SPC should make the transportation planning
  procedures clearer.

18
Environmental Findings

• Many MPOs only do minimum environmental planning
  based on federal mandates
• Majority of initiatives directly concern
  transportation
• Other initiatives involve solid waste reduction,
  air water quality, greenspace and
  sustainability issues
• SPC ranked low in benchmark list of environmental
  planning
• SPCs environmental programs CommuteInfo,
  Walkable Communities, and pedestrian and bicycle
  trail planning

19
Environmental Recommendations

• Increase weight given to environmental concerns
  when making transportation decisions.
• Improve the CommuteInfo program.
• Form relationships with watershed associations,
  promote water quality efforts, and promote
  waterways as alternative means of transportation.

20
Environmental Recommendations

• Set regional goals in solid waste reductions.
• Collaborate with regional Smart Growth expert
  organizations.
• Revise mission statement to include environmental
  goals.

21
SPC Economic Development Strategy
22
(No Transcript)
23
Recommendations

• The selection of economic development projects
  should be made at the regional, not County level.
• Regional plans must improve the coordination of
  investments in economic development and
  transportation.
• Economic development projects should be evaluated
  and prioritized based on the needs and potential
  benefits for the region.

24
MPOs as Service Providers
The MPOs were investigated to determine whether
they provided any of the following 12 services

• Housing
• Motor transit
• Light rail transit
• Commuter ride share
• Parks and recreation
• Watershed management

• Water treatment
• Educational
• Waste removal
• Other recreational
• Aging
• Police and fire employee testing

25
Portion of MPOs Offering Services
26
Exceptional Service Providers

• METRO (Portland region)
• Open Space Program
• Maintains and operates parks for recreational use
• Waste removal service
• Natural gardening classes
• Oregon Zoo operations
• Oregon Center for Performing Arts
• Oregon Convention Center
• Portland Metropolitan Exposition Center

• Metropolitan Council
• (Minneapolis/St. Paul region)
• Motor transit
• Hiawatha Light Rail service
• Water treatment
• Metropolitan Environmental Education Center
• Housing assistance in partnership with Fannie Mae

27
MPOs as Partners

• East-West Gateway Coordinating Council (St. Louis
  region)
• partners with local government, the Urban League,
  and the St. Louis Community College in order to
  provide an effective workforce development
  program.
• Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency
  (Cleveland region)
• partners with the Ohio EPA and local watershed
  management organizations to improve the regions
  water quality.

28
Recommendations

• SPC can enhance its role by participating in
  service provision, especially to areas in the
  region lacking a needed service.
• Several MPOs have used partnerships with other
  businesses, government agencies, or non profit
  organizations as a means of providing services.
  SPC can look for new potential partners in order
  to participate in provision of services.

29
Project Sustainability Findings

• MPOs are developing guidelines for needed
  projects based on planning goals and current
  deficiencies.
• MPOs are assessing the sustainability of
  candidate projects, according to expected social,
  environmental, and economic impacts.
• Some MPOs are measuring the effectiveness of
  projects to address plan goals and objectives.
• Few MPOs are monitoring and evaluating current
  projects.

30
Communications and Technology

• MPO Websites
• Public Participation
• GIS

31
MPO WebsitesWebsite Benchmarking Criteria

• Public documents/reports available
• Ease of navigation
• Site map
• Simple text vs. pop over links
• ADA friendly

• Attractive/easy to read
• Content/language understandable to average reader
• Useful information
• Contact information available
• Organization of data

32
Website Findings

• Top site Northeast Ohio Area-Wide Coordinating
  Agency (Cleveland)
• All sites contained basic information who, what,
  summaries, and documents
• Ease of navigation varied widely
• Better sites glossaries, simple explanations of
  planning process

33
SPC Website Recommendations

• Slight redesign to soften harsh colors
• Make Pop Over menus easier to read
• Allow font increases ADA friendly

34
Public Participation

• Must be proactive and provide complete
  information timely public notice, full public
  access to key decisions and opportunities for
  early and continuing involvement.
• -- (CFR 23, 450.212)

35
Findings Public Involvement

• MPOs vary in the type of proactive public
  involvement processes
• Best of MPOs - Portland Metro
• SPC - No downloadable Public Involvement Plan
• SPC - No Evaluation
• SPC 1998 Public Opinion Poll results
• FTA/FHWA 1998 SPC Certification Review

36
Recommendations Public Involvement

• Create a Public Involvement Work plan to include
• Public Involvement Strategies cablecast
  meetings, transportation summit and forums to
  educate the public, coffee talks
• Get Involved link on the website
• Downloadable items (PPP plan, evaluation)
• Committee for Citizen Involvement
• Posted meeting agendas and information
• Measurement and evaluation tools
• Public meetings conducted in different
  neighborhoods
• Expanded role of PPPs to reflect the demographics
  of the community

37
Rankings of MPOs for On-line GIS Services
Data Provisions
38
GIS Recommendations

• While SPC serves as a provider of GIS data to
  other agencies, the opportunity exists for SPCs
  role in provision of this data to be enhanced.
• Miller et al., in their 2004 study Phase 1
  Assessment Integrated Geographic Information
  System, recommend that SPC take the lead in
  coordinating the creation and operation of a
  regional integrated geographic information system
  (IRGIS).

39
Regional Players - Findings

• Very similar goals and objectives between
  Regional organizations and SPC
• Mutual endorsement but no action
• SPC communicates well with agencies, not citizens
• Focus is on transportation issues strong state
  and governmental influences

40
Regional Players - Recommendations

• Combine stand-alone efforts of organizations,
  URA, PRA, PA DCED
• Consider a citizens advisory group committee
  with regional citizens re projects, generate
  ideas, explore resources
• Draw on the resources of regional organizations.

41
Envision

• Greater Pittsburgh 2020 envisions an expanded
  Pittsburgh Region. Greater Pittsburgh 2020
  merges Pittsburgh and 38 border municipalities
  into one greater whole. encompassing 195 square
  miles home to 713,338 residents with an
  approximate available tax base of 266 million
  thereby making it the 15th largest city in the
  nation!
• Merging a city and county, such as Buffalo, takes
  not only common sense and practical policies but
  most importantly dedication to the vision of
  complete consolidation.
• If regional planners dare to dream big, as it has
  been seen in Denmark and Sweden, now known as The
  Oresund Region, could Pittsburghs waterways be
  the missing link to making Pittsburgh a Mega
  Region?

42
Envision Pittsburgh 2020Greater Pittsburgh
2020 envisions an expanded Pittsburgh Region,
encompassing 195 square miles, home to 713,338
residents, with an approximate available tax base
of 266 million, thereby making it the 15th
largest city in the nation!
43
Buffalo Merges

• Erie County executive Joel Giambra
• We dont want to wait for Pittsburgh to win the
  competition for new energy and new investment and
  a new reputation for innovation.
• He stated further, theyre talking about whether
  its going to be Ohio that goes first, or
  Pennsylvania that goes first to reach the goal of
  genuine regional government that works smarter,
  better and cheaper.
• Buffalo and Pittsburgh are similar in a number of
  ways
• Baby Steps are the Key

44
Oresund Region

• In 1993, the Oresund Committee was established as
  a regional policy forum for cross-border
  cooperation between Copenhagen and Scania.

45
What do we Envision for Pittsburgh?

• The waterways could be the gateway to a
• Pittsburgh-based Mega Region!

46
(No Transcript)
47
(No Transcript)
48
Major Benchmark Findings

• SPC tied for last by our ranking measures.
• SPC ranked low in five areas decision-making,
  land-use policy, environmental initiatives,
  public participation and awareness, and project
  sustainability.
• SPC ranked high in a project assessment
  measurement called goals, objectives and
  mission.

49
Conclusions - What SPC Needs To Do

• Adopt regional land use planning as a top
  priority
• Raise its public profile
• Balance representation to improve responsiveness
  to all residents
• Expand its vision to embrace the ethic that
  whats good for the region as a whole is good for
  its individual communities
• Continue to evolve into a regional governing body