1997Institute of Transportation Engineers 67th annual MeetingInstitute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)Requires access

MAINTAINING THE BALANCE: TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PARTNERSHIPS IN ISTEA AND BEYOND

W Constable

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 greatly enhanced the cooperative efforts of federal, state, and local officials in the metropolitan transportation planning process. By granting increased responsibility to the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), ISTEA expanded the partnership approach to directing the investment of federal highway and transit dollars in many regions of the nation. The bill's enactment reinforced the long-standing 3C's of cooperation, collaboration, and consensus building by providing broader participation in transportation decision-making. Since the passage of ISTEA, MPO partnerships have been tested and scrutinized against the backdrop of the metropolitan transportation planning and investment process. In some cases, the institutional arrangements of particular MPOs have not allowed for the increased participation called for in ISTEA. In a number of areas, the dissatisfaction of partners and stakeholders reflects a consequence of limited funding - a scenario that is not likely to change dramatically with reauthorization. In other areas, there have been occasions to modify the existing MPO structure, procedures and/or policies to bring about a more balanced partnership between federal, state and local players. This paper outlines these partnerships.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 greatly enhanced the cooperative efforts of federal, state, and local officials in the metropolitan transportation planning process. By granting increased responsibility to the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), ISTEA expanded the partnership approach to directing the investment of federal highway and transit dollars in many regions of the nation. The bill's enactment reinforced the long-standing 3C's of cooperation, collaboration, and consensus building by providing broader participation in transportation decision-making. Since the passage of ISTEA, MPO partnerships have been tested and scrutinized against the backdrop of the metropolitan transportation planning and investment process. In some cases, the institutional arrangements of particular MPOs have not allowed for the increased participation called for in ISTEA. In a number of areas, the dissatisfaction of partners and stakeholders reflects a consequence of limited funding - a scenario that is not likely to change dramatically with reauthorization. In other areas, there have been occasions to modify the existing MPO structure, procedures and/or policies to bring about a more balanced partnership between federal, state and local players. This paper outlines these partnerships.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 greatly enhanced the cooperative efforts of federal, state, and local officials in the metropolitan transportation planning process. By granting increased responsibility to the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), ISTEA expanded the partnership approach to directing the investment of federal highway and transit dollars in many regions of the nation. The bill's enactment reinforced the long-standing 3C's of cooperation, collaboration, and consensus building by providing broader participation in transportation decision-making. Since the passage of ISTEA, MPO partnerships have been tested and scrutinized against the backdrop of the metropolitan transportation planning and investment process. In some cases, the institutional arrangements of particular MPOs have not allowed for the increased participation called for in ISTEA. In a number of areas, the dissatisfaction of partners and stakeholders reflects a consequence of limited funding - a scenario that is not likely to change dramatically with reauthorization. In other areas, there have been occasions to modify the existing MPO structure, procedures and/or policies to bring about a more balanced partnership between federal, state and local players. This paper outlines these partnerships.

Key concepts: Metropolitan area, General partnership, Business, Investment (military), Transportation planning, Public administration, Legislation, Finance

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
MAINTAINING THE BALANCE: TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PARTNERSHIPS IN ISTEA AND BEYOND — Research Paper | ScholarLens