Earmark Pursuit Practices of Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Their Members

Abstract

This paper explores how earmarking in federal transportation spending alters the decision-making environment for metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and their members. Congress may designate earmarks to fund projects without regard to metropolitan (and state) transportation planning decisions. This raises questions about earmarking's impacts on metropolitan transportation planning. This work explores the interface between metropolitan transportation decision making and congressional earmarking through 55 open-ended interviews with transportation stakeholders across the nation. Interviewees–-identified by emergent sampling–-include metropolitan, state, and local transportation leaders, congressional staff, lobbyists, and national interest group representatives. In particular, the paper explores the earmark pursuit practices of MPOs and their members. These actors employ three different models for influencing earmarks. Some proactively request specific projects; others await opportunities to consult on earmark candidates; and still others remain on the sidelines. The paper discusses the models and contemplates the institutional consequences of earmarking for metropolitan planning. It observes that opportunities to influence earmarks have increased. Organizations involved in metropolitan and state transportation planning largely report that their earmarking involvement has shifted either from some involvement to more routine involvement, or from no involvement to some involvement. However, it concludes that the predominant patterns of organizational relationships in earmarking seem more likely to undercut metropolitan planning, either directly by yielding earmarked projects that are not regional priorities or indirectly by bypassing the MPO as a decision-making forum.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 3 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.