Urban Partnership Agreement

Urban Partnership Agreement
Name	Urban Partnership Agreement
Established	2009
Founder	United States Department of Transportation
Type	Program
Location	United States

Urban Partnership Agreement

The Urban Partnership Agreement was a United States transportation program launched in 2009 by the United States Department of Transportation under Secretary Ray LaHood and announced during the Obama administration alongside initiatives involving Smart Growth, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, White House policy priorities, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The program funded projects integrating congestion pricing pilots, bus rapid transit, telecommuting and intelligent transportation systems across multiple metropolitan areas including Chicago, Los Angeles, Minneapolis–Saint Paul, San Francisco Bay Area, and Miami. It sought to coordinate agency partners such as Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York)-style agencies, regional planning bodies like the Metropolitan Planning Organization model, and local executives including mayors such as Rahm Emanuel (then Chief of Staff later Mayor), tying federal grantmaking to local implementation.

Background

The Agreement grew out of earlier federal initiatives including Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 and Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century reforms, drawing on research from institutions such as Brookings Institution, RAND Corporation, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, and the Urban Institute. It reflected policy debates visible in hearings of the United States Congress (notably committees chaired by members like James Oberstar and John Mica), and incorporated concepts developed by municipal leaders associated with networks such as the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Mayors Innovation Project, and the International Association of Public Transport. The program leveraged partnerships among federal entities including the Environmental Protection Agency and state departments such as the California Department of Transportation.

Objectives and Provisions

The Agreement aimed to reduce traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions by implementing a toolbox of strategies: variable tolling similar to programs in London, Stockholm, and Singapore; dedicated bus rapid transit corridors akin to Mexico City Metrobús; transit signal priority deployments used in cities like Portland, Oregon; and incentives for telework inspired by pilots in Austin, Texas and Seattle. Provisions included performance targets borrowed from models like the Congestion Management Process and accountability measures comparable to reporting requirements of the Federal Transit Administration discretionary grants. Legal frameworks referenced included precedents from cases handled by the United States Supreme Court on transportation pricing and municipal authority.

Participating Cities and Agencies

Selected participating cities and agency partners encompassed metropolitan regions and operators such as Chicago Transit Authority, Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York), Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Bay Area Rapid Transit, Miami-Dade Transit, and regional planning entities like the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (San Francisco Bay Area), Metropolitan Council (Minnesota), and Miami-Dade County administration. Federal partners included the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and technical assistance from laboratories such as the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center and research from universities like Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of California, Berkeley, and University of Minnesota.

Implementation and Funding

Implementation relied on a mix of federal grants, matched local and state funds, and public–private partnerships with firms such as Siemens, Alstom, IBM, Cubic Corporation, and local contractors. Funding mechanisms invoked elements of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, discretionary grants administered by the Federal Transit Administration, and pilot toll revenue programs resembling those in New Jersey Turnpike Authority operations. Project management drew on best practices from the Project Management Institute and procurement models used by agencies like the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

Outcomes and Evaluation

Evaluations conducted by organizations such as the Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, National Academy of Sciences, and independent analysts at Institute for Transportation and Development Policy and Urban Institute reported mixed results: measurable travel time savings on select corridors in Chicago and Minneapolis–Saint Paul, increased ridership on bus rapid transit lines in Los Angeles-area pilots, and improvements in intelligent transportation systems reliability in the San Francisco Bay Area. Studies compared outcomes to international benchmarks like Congestion Charging in London and Stockholm congestion tax, and academic assessments published in journals associated with Transportation Research Board and Journal of Transport Geography.

Criticism and Controversies

Critics from advocacy groups such as Public Citizen and some labor unions argued the program favored privatization and tolling models promoted by consultants and firms like AECOM and TransCore, raising equity concerns highlighted by researchers at Brookings Institution and Natural Resources Defense Council. Legal challenges in some jurisdictions invoked municipal authority disputes similar to those in cases involving the San Francisco County Transportation Authority. Debates in state legislatures (for example, in California State Legislature and Florida Legislature) and positions taken by mayors and governors such as Jerry Brown and Charlie Crist reflected political contention. Academic critics from MIT, UC Berkeley, and University of Chicago questioned evaluation methodologies used by federal reports and urged longer-term monitoring by entities including the Government Accountability Office.

Category:Transportation in the United States