Recent efforts to implement regional-level funding sources in Las Vegas, Nevada; California's San Francisco Bay Area; and the state of Texas indicate that some states and regions are responding to transportation needs with institutional innovations that could allow greater metropolitan-level involvement in transportation finance. In light of the waning revenue-generating capacity of federal and state transportation user fees—historically, the main source of U.S. transportation funds—this article discusses different models for providing metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) with revenue-generating authority, the conditions under which different models may be more or less attractive, and what characteristics may make some MPOs candidates for such innovation. Institutional and practical considerations are also examined. A view of current transportation finance and policy trends provides context for the discussion, as does an account of how MPOs and their transportation projects are funded today.
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. (1972). Multistate regionalism. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
2.
Arnold, E.D., Weichmann, P.A., & Capizzano, J.A. (1999). A survey of transportation planning practices in state departments of transportation. Charlottesville: Virginia Transportation Research Council , Virginia Department of Transportation.
3.
Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations. (2003). AMPO advocates suballocation of CMAQ funds in TEA-3 based on the current federal allocation formula [cited November 9, 2006]. Available from http://www.ampo.org/assets/library_2/13_onepagers.pdf
4.
Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations. (2004). AMPO survey results: Institutional survey [cited November 10, 2006]. Available from http://www.ampo.org/assets/55_institutionalsurveyresult.doc
5.
Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations. (2003). AMPO survey results: Planning and operations [cited November 10, 2006]. Available from http://www.ampo.org/assets/60_planningandoperationsresu.doc
6.
Barbour, E. (2002). Metropolitan growth planning in California, 1900—2000 . San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
7.
Bloom, M.S., & Bennett, N. (1998). U.S. highway financing: Historical perspective and national priorities. TR News, 198, 3-7, 43.
8.
Bruno, D.L., & Stevens, C.R. (2005, August 18—19). Regional mobility authorities in Texas. Paper presented at the Mid-Continent Transportation Research Symposium, Ames, IA.
9.
Chai, J. (2002). Should California revisit SB 45? Available from the Mineta Transportation Institute, College of Business—BT550, San José State University, San José, CA 95192-0219.
10.
Crabbe, A.E., Hiatt, R., Poliwka, S.D., & Wachs, M. (2005). Local transportation sales taxes: California's experiment in transportation finance. Public Budgeting & Finance, 25(3), 91-121.
11.
Dempsey, P.S., Goetz, A., & Larson, C. (2000). Metropolitan planning organizations: An assessment of the transportation planning process. A report to Congress (Vols. 1—3). Denver, CO: University of Denver Intermodal Transportation Institute and the National Center for Intermodal Transportation, University of Denver.
12.
DiMaggio, P.J., & Powell, W.W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
13.
Downs, A. (1967). Inside bureaucracy. Boston : Little, Brown.
14.
Downs, T.M. (2005).Is there a future for the Federal Surface Transportation Program?Journal of Transportation Engineering, 131(6), 393-396.
15.
Federal Highway Administration. (2007). Highway construction cost increases and competition issues. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation [cited April 1, 2007]. Available from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/contracts/price.cfm
16.
Gage, R.W. (1992). Sector alignments for regional councils: Implications for intergovernmental relations in the 1990s. American Review of Public Administration, 22(3), 207-225.
17.
General Accounting Office. (1996). Urban transportation: Metropolitan planning organizations' efforts to meet federal planning requirements. Washington, DC: Author.
18.
Goldman, T., Corbett, S., & Wachs, M. (2001). Local option transportation taxes in the United States (Parts I and II)Berkeley, CA: Institute of Transportation Studies.
19.
Goldman, T., & Deakin, E. (2000). Regionalism through partnerships? Metropolitan planning since ISTEA. Berkeley Planning Journal, 14, 46-75.
20.
Goldman, T., & Wachs, M. (2003). A quiet revolution in transportation finance: The rise of local option transportation taxes. Transportation Quarterly, 57(1), 19-32.
21.
Hill, E.W., Geyer, B.K., & Puentes, R. (2003). Slanted pavement: How Ohio's highway spending shortchanges cities and suburbs. Washington, DC: Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, The Brookings Institution.
22.
Hoover, J., McDowell, B.D., & Sciara, G.-C. (2004). Transit at the table: A guide to participation in metropolitan decisionmaking. Washington, DC: Federal Transit Administration.
23.
Katz, B., Puentes, R., & Bernstein, S. (2003). TEA-21 reauthorization: Getting transportation right for metropolitan America. Washington, DC: Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, The Brookings Institution. Available online at http://www.brook.edu/es/urban/publications/tea21/htm
24.
Kulash, D. (2001). Transportation user fees in the United States . Transportation Quarterly, 55(3), 33-49.
25.
Lem, L.L. (1997). Dividing the federal pie. Access , 10, 10-14.
26.
Lewis, P.G., & Sprague, M. (1997). Federal transportation policy and the role of metropolitan planning organizations in California. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
27.
McDowell, B. (1984). The metropolitan planning organization role in the 1980s. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 18(2), 125—133.
28.
McDowell, B. (1995). MPO capacity: Improving the capacity of metropolitan planning organizations to help implement national transportation policies . Washington, DC: U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.
29.
National Research Council. (2002). The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program: Assessing 10 years of experience. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
30.
Nelson, A.C., Sanchez, T.W., Wolf, J.F. & Farquhar, M.B. (2004). Metropolitan planning organization voting structure and transit investment bias: Preliminary analysis with social equity implications. Transportation Research Record, 1895, 1-7.
31.
Puentes, R., & Bailey, L. (2005). Increasing funding and accountability for metropolitan transportation decisions. In B. Katz & R. Puentes (Ed.), Taking the high road: A metropolitan agenda for transportation reform (pp. 139-168). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Press.
32.
Roth, G. (2003, Spring). A road policy for the future. Regulation, 26, 54-59.
33.
Solof, M. (1998). The history of metropolitan planning organizations . Newark, NJ: Transportation Planning Authority.
34.
Stewart, L. (December 2003/January 2004). Regional Measure 2: Growing the pie. League of Women Voters of the Bay Area/Bay Area Monitor, pp. 1, 7.
35.
Taylor, B.D., & Schweitzer, L. (2005). Assessing the experience of mandated collaborative inter-jurisdictional transport planning in the United States. TransportPolicy, 12(6), 500-511.
36.
Thompson, J.D. (2003). Organizations in action: Social science bases in administrative theory (Rev. ed). Edison, NJ. Transaction .
37.
Texas Department of Transportation. (2004). Regional mobility authorities. Texas Administrative Code, Title 43, Chap. 26. Available on-line at http://www.co.grayson.tx.us/GCRMA/RMAchpt26.pdf
38.
U.S. Department of Transportation. (2004). Report to Congress on public-private partnerships. Washington, DC: Author.
39.
U.S. Department of Transportation. (1998, September 14). TEA-21—Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century: Fact sheet. Surface transportation program. Washington, DC: Author. Available from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/factsheets/stp.htm
40.
Wachs, M. (2003). A dozen reasons for raising gasoline taxes. Public Works Management & Policy, 7(4), 235-242.
41.
Wear, B. (2004, November 26). A call for electing toll road makers: Board and commission appointees are less accountable, critics say. Austin American-Statesman, p. B1.
