California Statutes Affecting MPOs

1
California StatutesAffecting MPOs
Therese W. McMillan Deputy Executive Director,
Policy Metropolitan Transportation
Commission TRB Annual Meeting January 2008
2
The California Context

• CA has long history of state based regional
  planning directives
• Federal designations
• 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs)
• State designations
• 26 Regional Transportation Planning Agencies
• Some overlap

3
Source 2007 California Regional Transportation
Plan Guidelines
4

• Mid-1970s State Statutes mandated coordination
  between federal and state planning
  responsibilities
• State has independent and unique regional
  participation requirements for fund programming
• To extent MPO/RTPA designation is shared,
  augmented state responsibilities strengthen and
  enhance federal MPO responsibilities

5
Planning
6
Long Range PlanningGovernment Code 65030

• 1972 State regulations requiring Regional
  Transportation Plans (RTP)
• Mid-70s amendments to require state and federal
  coordination for regional planning
• RTP to satisfy both MPO and RTPA
  responsibilities California Transportation
  Commission RTP Guidelines (http//www.catc.ca.gov
  /RTP/2007_RTP_Guidelines.pdf )

7
Land Use/Transportation Planning

• State legislation begins with 1989 Transportation
  Blueprint county focus
• Limited regional land use authority / while
  challenged periodically in legislature, locals
  still rule
• Regional blueprint planning legislated as
  voluntary activity (Gov. Code 65080.3)
• Example in MTC area Joint Policy Committee
  legislation

8
Air Quality Planning

• California has independent state air quality
  standards more stringent than federal standards
• CA MPOs in non-attainment areas by definition
  must address both federal and state air quality
  planning requirements however federal
  implementation and adherence more rigorous

9
Climate Change

• Assembly Bill 32 California Global Warming
  Solutions Act of 2006
• Mandated Greenhouse Gas Reductions 1990 levels
  by 2020
• Will require some role for regional agencies
  transportation contributions to GHG
• 41 - California
• 50 - San Francisco Bay Area

10
Climate Change

• Senate Bill 375 currently in legislature
  anticipates regional role MPO with state RTPA
  designation would be in play if passed
• Irrespective, AB 32 implementation regs are being
  developed expect regional transportation
  responsibilities

11
Fund Programming
12
Source 2007 California Regional Transportation
Plan Guidelines
13
Senate Bill 1435Statutes of 1992

• Aligned federal planning and programming est. in
  ISTEA with state regulations
• Required subvention of Surface Transportation
  Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air
  Quality programming decisions to MPOs/RTPAs
• Ground breaking provision continued through
  TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU authorization periods

14
Senate Bill 45 Statutes of 1997

• Established guidelines for regional programming
  decisions for funds in State Transportation
  Improvement Program (STIP)
• Roughly 1.2 billion per year (2005-06)
• 75 of STIP to regions for programming
• Limited state intervention
• STIP funded through State Highway Account
• Composed of both state and federal program (e.g.
  NHS, IM, state share of STP, TEA, etc.)

15
A Case for the California Advantage

• Federal Legislative intent reinforced with
  tradition of state legislation supporting
  regional transportation planning and programming
• Additional state responsibilities are consciously
  meshed with like federal requirements

16
A Case for the California Advantage

• State mandated regional discretionary funding
  provides impact for regional transportation
  planning and investment decisions
• States leading edge activities (e.g. climate
  change) provide leadership opportunities for MPOs
  and some measure of risk

17
www.mtc.ca.gov
Therese McMillan Deputy Executive Director,
Policy