Abstract
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) requires metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to develop financially constrained metropolitan transportation plans and programs. FHWA officials believed that independent studies were needed if problems with the requirement were to be understood. A summary of findings of those studies along with an analysis by an FHWA official are presented. Financial planning requirements were found to be generally well received. Fiscal constraint requirements can be traumatic, but there is agreement that realistic programs are worth having. Reconciling costs with revenues was found to present MPOs with the most severe difficulties. Allowing contingency projects and revenue sources and smoothing the transportation improvement program amendment process can retain fiscal realism while diminishing the trauma of cost-revenue reconciliation. Underestimation of capital and operating and maintenance costs to balance a plan were found to be probable. Dissemination of “best practice” examples by FHWA and FTA and MPO self-policing appear to be the most likely corrective actions. It was found that few MPOs considered technologies to reduce operations and maintenance costs. Placement of such technologies will be slow. MPO personnel were found to have encountered more constraints than expected in using the modal flexibility provisions of ISTEA. More MPO regional coalition building will be needed to meet flexibility expectations. Despite availability, it was found that FHWA and FTA information, reports, and software concerning nonfederal sources of revenue were not obtained by officials desiring them. MPOs are encouraged to rely more on expert assistance to implement local funding sources.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.