Meet the Obscure Unelected Agencies Strangling Many U.S. Cities

Transit investment lagged in regions where MPO boards did not give equal representation to city populations, Detroit (SE Michigan) being an especially bad example. In more democratic metros, investment was much more balanced. Image: Nelson, 2003

Do you know the name of your local Metropolitan Planning Organization or Council of Government? Most Americans don’t. In fact, most people probably have no idea these agencies even exist, let alone what they do. Yet they are surprisingly powerful and play a substantial role in shaping the places where we live and work.

Led by unelected boards, MPOs and COGs, as they’re known, are a special breed among government agencies. They lack the authority to issue taxes or impose laws. As such, they go largely unmentioned in the media and are mostly unknown to local residents, outside of the most wonkish circles. But the low profile of MPOs and COGs belies their considerable power.

Despite their limitations, they represent the strongest form of regional governance we’ve got in the United States, crossing city and county lines. More importantly, they dispense hundreds of millions of federal transportation dollars annually. While these agencies often distribute transportation funds more fairly than state DOTs, many of them are structured in a way that favors sprawl and undermines cities.

MPOs and COGs can be profoundly undemocratic. They are governed by boards of public officeholders, but there is no requirement that they be in any way representative of the region’s population. In fact, the general rule that governs the composition of MPO boards is “one place, one vote,” rather than the more traditional “one person, one vote.” This often produces decisions dramatically skewed toward suburban and rural interests.

For example, greater Milwaukee’s MPO, known by the unwieldy acronym SEWRPC, is governed by a board of 21 members, three from each of the counties that make up the planning region. That means that the city of Milwaukee — population nearly 600,000 — has zero representatives on the commission that distributes millions of dollars for transportation throughout the region. It is not guaranteed any votes. The city’s only voting power comes from the three seats given to Milwaukee County — and those must be spread between the central city and many suburbs. Meanwhile, rural Walworth County — population 100,000 — is guaranteed three votes.

Milwaukee is an especially egregious case. But unfortunately, this general pattern is more the norm than the exception. A 1999 Brookings Institution study [PDF] found that central cities were under-represented in as many as 92 percent of MPOs and COGs.

That bias can have a strong impact on policy, further research has shown. A 2003 study by researchers at Virginia Tech found that for each additional suburban member on an MPO board, there was a 1 to 9 percent decrease in funding for transit — with highways being the favored alternative.

Researchers examined three regions where boards were unrepresentative and three regions where they were proportional to population. They found significant differences: Transit investment varied from a low of 3.2 percent in Detroit (unrepresentative) to 50 percent in Seattle (proportional).

Across the country, the composition of MPO boards varies wildly. The only federal requirement is that at least 75 percent of the region be represented in some capacity, said Delania Hardy, director of the Association of Metropolitan Planning Agencies. And while there are plenty of examples of places where there is room for improvement, she said, there are also good examples.

While Milwaukee represents one extreme, Portland embodies another. This region is the only place in the country where the MPO board is not only representative of the region’s population, but also directly elected by the local population.

In late 2009, Myron Orfield, author of “American Metropolitics,” set out to determine which metro areas had the most effective regional planning agencies. He evaluated the country’s 25 largest metro regions [PDF] on indicators such as sprawl, segregation, growth and fiscal equity. Portland was the runaway standout.

“They have a very good urban growth boundary. They cluster jobs at defined job centers. They require that all communities build their fair share of affordable housing. They have low and decreasing segregation,” he said. “On every measure that we care about, it does well.”

Outside of having directly elected MPO representatives, Portland has some other advantages, a strong land use policy framework being the most notable. But allowing the public to directly elect the people who will shape their region is also important, Orfield said.

“If you don’t have it up for election, it’s really hard for people to participate,” he said. “It’s sort of a general principle of democracy.”

During the last round of negotiations over the federal transportation bill, in 2009, Orfield joined the National Association of City Transportation Officials in lobbying for MPO reform. His legislation would have required proportional representation for directly-elected MPO boards. The reforms were adopted into the transportation reauthorization bill put forward by Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN) but never became law.

Some communities are making progress toward important sustainability and equity goals on their own. Orfield pointed to Chicago, Washington D.C., Seattle, San Diego, and even Raleigh, North Carolina.

“Regions with more proportional representation tend to do a better job,” he said.

Detroit’s MPO is dominated by rural and suburban interests. Its transit system is uniquely dysfunctional among large metro areas. Photo: ## Enterprise##

On the other hand you have Detoit’s SEMCOG, which is responsible for dispersing $1 billion in federal funds annually. In 2006, SEMCOG was the subject of a civil rights lawsuit over the composition of its executive committee. At the time, the agency had allocated three delegates to the city of Detroit, representing more than 900,000 people. Meanwhile, Livingston County — which has a population of less than 200,000 people — was given four delegates.

Discrepancies like this can be especially insidious for people of color. For example, at the time of the lawsuit, Detroit was more than 80 percent African-American. Meanwhile Livingston County, on the opposite extreme, is less than one percent African-American, according to a court deposition.

The suit was dismissed because the court determined the principle of “one person, one vote” does not apply to appointed positions. Five years later, not much has changed, says Ponscella Hardaway, director of MOSES, the low-income advocacy group that brought suit against SEMCOG.

In a symbol of regional failure, Detroit is unique among large metros for operating separate transit systems for its central city and the surrounding suburbs — a byproduct of the Motor City’s stark racial segregation. That creates a logistical nightmare for transit riders.

SEMCOG “could have taken some leadership” on this issue, said Hardaway. “Their vision for regional cooperation is not matched with their actions. It’s almost like they’re a nonentity.”

As you might expect, the Detroit region performs poorly on the measures Orfield used to measure effective regional planning.

“It is really probably the worst in the country,” said Orfield. “Detroit builds massive highways into cornfields and doesn’t reinvest in the existing infrastructure or build transit. Detroit is a catastrophe.”

8 thoughts on Meet the Obscure Unelected Agencies Strangling Many U.S. Cities

  1. Regional governance is more a case of an apparently influential level of government than anything else. Local jurisdictions – cities and counties – wield extraordinary power, especially in California. MPOs simply pass money through, they have no implementation authority and have shown time and again a complete unwillingness to challenge local projects.

    Additionally, much of the funding that comes down is already “committed” by locals – another aspect that MPOs are loathe to challenge. Federal formulas dictate how much money is available at that level for transit and highways. In California the gas tax is split between highways and transit. Highway money can often be flexed to transit, but rarely is. The bulk of transit funding is local anyway. If Detroit residents want a better system, unfortunately their best option to fund it is to tax themselves. The sorry state of regional governance means, basically, that solving truly regional problems is impossible.

  2. My understanding of the reason for putting MPOs in charge of transportation in the early 90s was the unequal distribution of federal funds, where more wealthy communities held more influence than lower income (often minority) communities. The intent was to solve problems that go beyond city boundaries, hence metropolitan planning organization and invlove urban, suburban and rural areas all with different priorities both in terms of transportation and politics.

    Also, why the comparing apples to oranges. Detroit is part of Wayne County. Wouldn’t a better comparison be how many representatives are from Wayne County, when comparing to Livingston County, rather than the city of Detroit?

  3. This was the idea behind MPOs when they were created in the 60s – unfortunately MPO boards are still drawn from the pool of local electeds. In effect we’re giving a group of individuals who have responsibilities to _local_ constituents the responsibility for planning _regional_ transportation. There’s a fundamental mismatch in responsibility and desire.

  4. Even though SEMCOG won the lawsuit back in 2003 regarding voting rights, the organization has since implemented a voting system that includes both one vote per delegate and a population weighted vote.using  an electronic key pad system. Any measure including those for transportation/transit must pass for both voting formats. Since being implemented, no measures have ever gone down to defeat due to a split vote, implying the regional problems for the Detroit Metropolitan area are more far reaching than a COG voting process.

  5. Ms SchmittI very much appreciate your bringing this important matter up. Not enough journalism covers MPOs and their critical role in regional governance and transportation planning. 
    That being said, I have some 2 groups of problems with your article: untrue statements and unfair statements. 
    For the sake of brevity, I have withheld the unfair statements, but would be happy to supply them at any time. 
    Untrue statements:
    “Led by unelected boards, MPOs and COGs…” some MPOs are led by elected, representative boards.”MPOs and COGs, as they’re known…” MPOs and COGs are two different things. Sometimes they are the same thing (I think 50% of the time) but they are not by definition the same.Unfair statement: “many of them are structured in a way that favors sprawl and undermines cities…””there is no requirement that they be in any way representative of the region’s population…” –this depends on the particular MPOs charter! There is no requirement maybe at the federal level, but if that’s what you meant you should have cited the Title and Chapter of the Code.“one place, one vote” is not the way all MPOs are run. I can think of a few of the largest that are population-sensitive. “If you don’t have it up for election, it’s really hard for people to participate… It’s sort of a general principle of democracy.” the participation in leading boards and organizations such as an MPO’s policy board is a clear and advertised part of an elected official’s responsibility, understood in their selection and activity as representative of their jurisdiction. This is why voting is important in the first place. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


5 Techniques That Guide the Best Regional Planning Agencies

“Metropolitan Planning Organization” is the wonky name for an obscure but oh-so-important breed of public agency — the regional planning bodies charged with distributing federal transportation funds. MPOs can be powerful, transformative agencies that enhance economic growth, save people time, and improve public health. Or they can do the bare minimum required by law and […]

Yes, Local Transportation Agencies Can Measure Their Climate Impacts

It’s going to be a tough sell for those who claim that greenhouse gas performance measures for transportation can’t possibly work, when plenty of transportation agencies say it would be no problem. That’s according to transportation officials in several regions across America who responded to a survey commissioned by the Natural Resources Defense Council. The responses were […]

What Washington Can Do For — And Alongside — Metro Area Planners

At one point midway through yesterday’s Brookings Institution forum on metropolitan planning, moderator Chris Leinberger quipped that Portland was deliberately not represented. It’s not that Portland isn’t a model of sustainability, he explained, but that "we all have Portland fatigue" — that urban policy thinkers are eager to expand the models of local development beyond […]

Oberstar’s Transportation Bill: The Early Word

Policy wonks across the capital are still poring over the 775-page bill released earlier today by Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN), chairman of the House transportation committee. But searching the legislation for the key topics being debated by transportation reformers reveals new details and raises new questions. The new House transportation bill brings good news for […]

FHWA Will Help Cities Get Serious About Measuring Biking and Walking

The lack of good data on walking and biking is a big problem. Advocates say current metrics yield a spotty and incomplete picture of how much, where, and why Americans walk and bike. The U.S. Census only tells us about commuting — a fairly small share of total trips. The more detailed National Household Transportation Survey comes with its own drawbacks: It’s […]