Tri-State Regional Planning Commission

The Tri-State Regional Planning Commission was an interstate regional planning agency that operated in the New York metropolitan area from 1961 to 1982. It originated in 1961 as the Tri-State Transportation Committee, became the Tri-State Transportation Commission in 1965 through enabling legislation in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York, and was reconstituted in 1971 with an expanded mandate as the Tri-State Regional Planning Commission. The commission served as the region’s designated metropolitan planning organization for federal surface transportation programs and as the areawide clearinghouse under OMB Circular A-95. It is best known for a Regional Development Guide and related plans as well as region-scale data programs, and for its role in reviewing federal grants under A-95. A prominent controversy involved its approvals of the proposed Westway highway later examined by the U.S. General Accounting Office.^[1][2][3] The agency ceased operations on June 30, 1982, following Connecticut’s withdrawal from the compact—which became legally effective on May 1, 1982—and concurrent federal policy changes that ended the A-95 review system.^[4][5][6][7]

Tri-State Regional Planning Commission

Agency overview
Formed	August 30, 1961 (1961-08-30)
Preceding agencies	Tri-State Transportation Committee Tri-State Transportation Commission
Dissolved	June 30, 1982 (1982-06-30)
Superseding agencies	New York Metropolitan Transportation Council North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority Six Connecticut MPOs
Jurisdiction	New York metropolitan area
Headquarters	New York City

Background

The concept of formal interstate cooperation in the New York region predated the commission's founding. As early as 1958, discussions were underway between the governors of New York and New Jersey about creating a bi-state transit district, while the Metropolitan Regional Council, an association of local elected officials, advocated for a broader tri-state approach.^[8] The postwar expansion of the New York region strained a fragmented institutional landscape. Federal legislation in the early 1960s conditioned highway and transit funds on a continuous, comprehensive, and cooperative planning process in urbanized areas. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962 required every urbanized area of more than 50,000 residents to establish a coordinated planning process to qualify for federal aid.^[5] Early metropolitan planning organizations often grew out of state highway departments and ad hoc committees, while a parallel architecture of categorical grants and planning assistance programs incentivized regional data and review.^[9][5]

HUD Section 701 planning grants supported metropolitan data and comprehensive planning through the 1960s and early 1970s. OMB Circular A-95 created an areawide review system for federal grant applications, with designated regional clearinghouses evaluating consistency with regional plans.^[9] This architecture shaped the Tri-State agency’s mission, staffing, and budgets and later amplified the impact of federal retrenchment.^[10]

Formation and early years (1961–1965)

On August 30, 1961, the governors of New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey created the Tri-State Transportation Committee as an ad hoc body to address immediate regional transportation crises.^[11] The context included uncertainty over continued passenger service on the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad and the financial difficulties of other commuter rail lines, pressures to maintain eligibility for federal Interstate Highway funds, declines in waterfront rail freight, and constrained general aviation facilities in the metropolitan area.^[12][11]

From its inception, the committee was given a dual mandate: to create an "immediate-action program" to solve urgent problems and to develop a long-range plan for transportation and land development.^[11] The committee's defined study area covered 10 counties in New Jersey, 12 in New York (including the five boroughs of New York City), and six planning regions in Connecticut.^[11] The committee, operating under a "gentlemen's agreement" between the three governors, immediately began coordinating multi-agency studies and large-scale data collection, working through four Local Cooperating Committees representing each state and New York City.^[13][11] In late 1962, it launched a region-wide study by mailing questionnaires to 500,000 households to gather data on travel habits, which would inform an "immediate-action program for improvements."^[14] A key challenge for the informal committee was its inability to compel action from the region's many local governments. This was highlighted in September 1964 when the Westchester County Board of Supervisors vetoed a $400,000 subsidy for the New Haven Railroad, a critical component of a stabilization plan developed by the committee, with supervisors from outside the railroad's service area refusing to spend their constituents' tax funds on it.^[15]

Legislative formalization (1965–1971)

The transition from an informal committee to a statutory agency was fraught with political conflict, particularly from New Jersey. Both New York and Connecticut approved the interstate compact in 1963, but the Republican majority in the New Jersey Senate blocked its passage in 1963 and 1964.^[16] New Jersey legislators, led by Senate Majority Leader William E. Ozzard, expressed fears that the proposed commission would become a "superagency" with overly broad powers, particularly over land use and condemnation.^[13][16] Ozzard and other northern county senators argued that New Jersey had no common transportation problems with Connecticut and that a bi-state compact with New York would be sufficient.^[16]

The impasse threatened the region's eligibility for federal highway aid, as federal law required regional planning to be in place by July 1, 1965.^[13] After extensive negotiations and amendments to the proposed compact—including provisions to ensure New Jersey would not be financially responsible for the New Haven Railroad—the New Jersey legislature finally passed the bill.^[13] The Tri-State Transportation Commission was officially created as an interstate compact agency in June 1965, providing it with formal recognition and a governing structure to administer the regional transportation planning process.^[17]

During this period the commission directed federal and state grants to stabilize key commuter rail services while master plans for public ownership and reinvestment took shape. New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority assumed responsibilities for intrastate rail operations. Connecticut advanced a parallel path through the Connecticut Transportation Authority. The commission’s planning helped thread these transitions through federal processes that conditioned funds on a coherent metropolitan program.^[12]

Expanded regional planning mandate (1971–1982)

In May 1971 the three states renewed and expanded the interstate compact and renamed the organization the Tri-State Regional Planning Commission. The change reflected a shift from narrowly defined transportation planning to comprehensive regional planning across housing, environment, recreation, and related public functions.^[18] The commission served as the designated metropolitan planning organization for federal transportation programs and the areawide review body under A-95. It prepared long-range transportation plans and the short-range Transportation Improvement Program that grouped highway and transit projects eligible for federal funds.^[5] The commission’s headquarters were on the 82nd floor of 1 World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan.^[4][19]

Organization and governance

Commission structure and membership

The commission’s governing board included delegations from each state with voting procedures that required a majority within each state’s membership. This arrangement effectively provided each state with veto power over commission actions. Federal participants from the Federal Highway Administration, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency attended as nonvoting members.^[20] Decision records were transmitted to governors, who retained the authority to veto commission actions within a specified period after receipt of minutes.^[21]

Membership evolved across the 1970s. In early years the commission counted 18 members, later moving to 15 voting members with five from each state. Ex officio roles were common for cabinet-level officials or agency heads holding transportation and environmental portfolios. Technical committees and advisory groups augmented formal governance and provided a venue for subject-matter review before matters reached the board.^[20]

Staff and organization

Professional staffing expanded with the commission’s broadened mandate. At its peak the staff numbered approximately 225. By 1980, the commission had 220 employees.^[19] Amid growing criticism, its work force declined sharply, from 226 in 1979 to 82 by December 1981.^[22] Units were organized by function and program area, with analysts moved among groups as project requirements shifted. The commission operated outside civil service systems, with New York State administering employee benefits as the principal fiscal agent under the compact.^[4][21]

A standing Technical Advisory Group convened roughly 50 experts from state, county, and federal agencies. It reviewed work programs, modeling assumptions, and staff reports before they reached the commission agenda. Advisory deliberations often mediated disagreements among state agencies, metropolitan counties, and city departments before formal votes.^[23]

Funding and budget

The commission’s budget combined federal planning assistance and state matching funds. Initial financing came from the three states, the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads under its highway planning program, and the U.S. Housing and Home Finance Agency through its urban planning assistance ("701 program") and mass transportation demonstration grants.^[11] Later, federal sources provided approximately two thirds of annual revenues through highway and transit planning grants administered by the United States Department of Transportation and comprehensive planning funds administered by HUD.^[24] In 1980, the commission's budget was $14.7 million, with 75 percent coming from the federal government.^[19] By December 1981, its annual budget had shrunk to $2.9 million.^[22]

By the end of its existence, the commission was beset by severe financial problems. A Governors' Task Force investigation found that the agency operated "without systematic expenditure and revenue budgets, without annual financial reports, without unified audits, [and] without adequate accounting systems," and that commissioners routinely approved "budget figures which have no precise relationship to actual expenditures." The agency's financial arrangement required New York to advance operating funds that were to be repaid by federal reimbursements and matching funds from other sources. This system broke down, and by 1981 the commission was $12 million in arrears to New York State, a debt that contributed to its institutional crisis.

State matching contributions varied across time and across states. In the early 1970s Connecticut contributed roughly 3 percent while New Jersey and New York each contributed approximately 15 percent. In-kind technical support from agencies and local governments supplemented cash matches.^[24]

Programs and activities

Regional Development Guide

The commission produced a Regional Development Guide that organized a framework for future land use and infrastructure investments. This fulfilled one of the original 1961 goals of the committee: to create a long-range plan based on the interrelationship between transportation, land development, and population growth.^[11] Work began in the early 1960s with extensive field surveys and mapping that supported an analytic grid of square-mile cells. The guide presented long-range objectives across economic clustering, residential areas, open space preservation, and the interplay between transportation and land use. It served as the backbone for functional plans in transportation, recreation, housing, and environmental management.^[1] A 1967 regional forecast, part of this effort, projected the area's population would grow from 17.9 million in 1963 to 23.2 million by 1985 and would require 900 miles of new expressways and a total of $57 billion in public development.^[25]

Transportation planning

The commission prepared long-range regional transportation plans and iterated the Transportation Improvement Program to program federal funds for both highway and transit projects. The regional planning process preserved eligibility for Interstate construction and ensured that major investments conformed to a regionally coordinated program.^[26] Its plans included specific projects such as a proposed east-west expressway in northern Bergen County with a new bridge over the Hudson River, and improvements to the Erie Lackawanna Railroad service via a new transfer station in Secaucus.^[27] The commission supported creation of a morning exclusive bus lane to the Lincoln Tunnel, reported to cut commuting times for tens of thousands of riders by roughly 15 to 25 minutes.^[26] It organized transit demonstrations, managed numerous subregional studies, and administered millions of dollars in planning projects for public transportation.^[28]

Westway highway project

See also: West Side Highway § Westway

The commission approved inclusion of the proposed Westway project in its 1975 regional transportation plan and endorsed it annually. In 1977, in its role as the A-95 clearinghouse, the commission reviewed the project and found it consistent with regional goals. In 1982 the U.S. General Accounting Office reported that the commission could not produce documentation explaining the basis of the 1975 approval or the scope of the 1977 review.^[3] Officials suggested the project likely entered the plan through the New York State Department of Transportation. The GAO also recorded that staff had developed alternatives in 1978 and 1980 to trade Interstate funds for a surface roadway combined with major transit investments but that commissioners declined to request detailed study, noting that state and city officials had rejected similar proposals.^[3] Analyses of the regional institutional context emphasized how state-level politics shaped regional outcomes and constrained independent regional analysis.^[17]

Environmental management and recreation

The commission published plans for environmental management that addressed sewage treatment, air quality, regional water supply, and solid waste disposal in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It produced a Regional Recreation Lands Plan that identified strategies to acquire and develop neighborhood parks and major regional facilities.^[29][30]

Data collection and regional analysis

Throughout its existence, the agency emphasized its role as a neutral, data-driven entity. Its first chairman, Dr. William J. Ronan, stated in 1963, "We are not planning the future, we are gathering data the local communities would never be able to get by themselves. We are not a superagency, we are a data-gathering agency."^[31]

Large-scale data programs supported the commission’s planning, an approach established in the committee's initial 1962 prospectus, which detailed a multi-year effort to inventory travel patterns, land use, and economic activity as a foundation for all subsequent analysis.^[11] In 1963 a 1 percent home interview survey collected detailed demographic and travel behavior for approximately 57,000 households, accompanied by a comprehensive land use inventory. To facilitate consistent analysis across jurisdictions and inconsistent statistical geographies the staff developed a grid of square-mile data cells with coordinate references.^[2] The commission acted as the regional processing center for 1970 Census tapes and generated hundreds of custom tabulations for agencies and counties before Census Bureau publications were widely released.^[2]

A collaborative “Worker File” was developed with regional agencies and the Census Bureau to address limitations in the standard Urban Transportation Planning Package, providing disaggregated records suitable for mapping commuting across multiple metropolitan areas.^[2]

Public participation

The commission expanded public involvement during the early 1970s with household surveys on housing conditions, transportation preferences, and recreational needs.^[32] It created a citizen advisory panel with membership from each state, increased public access to commission deliberations, and convened a regional meeting series culminating in a 1976 conference with several thousand attendees. To broaden participation outside its central offices, the commission held public meetings in various parts of the region, including suburban locations like White Plains, New York, and Danbury, Connecticut.^[32][33][34]

Intergovernmental role and A-95 clearinghouse

As the designated MPO and A-95 clearinghouse, the commission reviewed applications for a wide range of federal assistance programs to assess consistency with regional plans. Through the mid-1970s it reviewed applications across more than a hundred federal programs and processed hundreds of submissions annually. Its role ensured maintenance of federal eligibility and in some instances enabled higher federal matching ratios for transit projects than the national baseline.^[4][26]

The A-95 process itself rested on federal requirements rather than independent local adoption. When federal policy shifted toward block grants and intergovernmental review directed by states, the commission’s clearinghouse role diminished and then disappeared. Contemporary analyses described how regional bodies constructed around federal workflows faced existential risk when those workflows and mandates were withdrawn.^[10][6]

Relationship to other regional bodies

The Tri-State Transportation Committee expanded upon the work and recommendations of the New York-New Jersey Metropolitan Rapid Transit Commission, which was formed in 1954 and dissolved in 1959. The commission operated among several regional organizations that included the Metropolitan Regional Council formed in 1956, the Regional Plan Association formed in 1922, and a network of county and state planning offices. The resulting multiplicity complicated efforts to consolidate authority in a single metropolitan institution and reflected differing legal bases across entities, with public, interstate compact, and private nonprofit organizations pursuing overlapping agendas. Analyses at the time documented the complexity of intergovernmental relations and the limited ability of metropolitan bodies to mandate land use or development outcomes absent statutory authority.^[9][17]

Criticism and debate

Since his appointment in September 1978, the commission's executive director, Frank Johnson, sought to rebut charges of "wastefulness" by strengthening the agency's fiscal accountability.^[19][22] However, criticism from a governors' task force and local officials intensified in the agency's final years. Johnson argued that the commission was often forced by federal mandate to "play the heavy in purely local issues" and warned that its abolition would force county and state agencies to increase their own budgets to replicate its work on housing, transportation, and pollution.^[22][19]

Governance and management failures

Commentary from scholars and practitioners criticized the commission for a cautious posture and for acting in practice like a consulting organization focused on data and grant processing rather than on high-conflict policy leadership. A Governors' Task Force appointed in 1979 identified fundamental governance failures. In a March 1981 report, the task force's director, Dr. Annmarie Walsh, noted high rates of absenteeism among commissioners, stating that Newark Mayor Kenneth A. Gibson "has never attended a meeting" and that other key officials were also frequently absent. The report recommended revising state laws to no longer require most commissioners to be elected officials, who were "understandably too busy" to dedicate the necessary time.^[19] This finding echoed earlier task force conclusions that policy-making functions "have fallen to its staff because some commissioners haven't time or interest to carry out their duties." Observers argued that many metropolitan bodies functioned as adjuncts to state highway departments in their early years, and that regional staff often avoided controversial positions while meeting federal requirements.^[17] At the same time the commission’s technical work, data products, and census processing drew demand from agencies, municipalities, private firms, and civic organizations.^[17][2]

Suburban resistance and political opposition

Long Island county executives publicly challenged the commission’s authority, arguing that suburban needs were subordinated to those of New York City.^[4] This tension was exemplified by criticism from Lee Koppelman, director of the Long Island Regional Planning Board, who stated that "the fact that Tri-State is going out of business is well-deserved, but unfortunate." The commission was particularly criticized for being "so blind to Long Island's transportation needs that in a 1975 study it could find no justification for any major expansion of ferry service between Long Island and Connecticut."

Similar opposition existed in New Jersey. Officials in Morris County described the agency as "not very relevant," while the Somerset County Planning Director criticized the "constant changing of requirements that drags out a two-year project four or five years." The Director of Engineering for Union County called the commission "an unnecessary layer of government that furnishes us with unnecessary statistics."^[19]

A major source of conflict was the commission's housing plan, which allocated quotas for low-income housing to suburban counties. In 1978, after the commission adopted a plan calling for 40,000 units of subsidized housing in Nassau County by 2000, Nassau County Executive Francis T. Purcell labeled the agency's suggestion that non-compliance could jeopardize other federal funds as "extortion" and "blackmail."^[35] In 1979, the Long Island Regional Planning Board took over the review of most federal aid applications for Nassau and Suffolk counties, diminishing the commission's role in that part of the region.^[36] Other local officials described the commission as "just another layer of bureaucracy" and an "outside group" imposing mandates on municipalities.^[36][37]

Dissolution

Governors' Task Force and political context

The commission's dissolution was precipitated by an intensive two-year study by the Governors' Task Force on the Future of the Tristate Regional Planning Commission. An independent 15-member panel drawn from business, the professions, and government, the task force studied the agency during 1979 and 1980.^[38] Chaired by Dr. Chester A. Rapkin of Princeton University, the task force issued a report in January 1981 titled "New Directions for Regional Planning," which concluded that the commission's tasks had been "haphazardly shaped by proliferating federal regulations."^[22][19] In a scathing indictment, the report concluded that Tri-State studies "have provided little help to the region's decision-makers," that the agency was not accountable to governors or local communities, and that it "routinely approved Tri-State expenditures without program budget information, adequate accounting system, unified audits, or financial reports," which had made the states "increasingly unwilling to provide appropriations."^[38]

In a letter delivered on December 14, 1981, the task force "unanimously decided" to recommend that the agency "be abolished."^[38][22] In a letter to the governors of the three states, it cited the commission's "lack of adequate accounting, budgeting and financial reporting" and urged that a financial oversight committee be "immediately appointed to supervise a final audit" and the agency's "orderly dismantling."^[38][22] The final report was a scathing indictment of the agency's management, concluding that Tri-State "has been unable to produce a single accurate financial statement" since the study began and that its studies "have provided little help to the region's decision-makers."

This finding provided the final impetus for Connecticut's legislative withdrawal from the interstate compact. In 1981, the Connecticut General Assembly voted to pull out of the agency, and on June 26, 1981, Governor William A. O'Neill sent a letter to the Federal Highway Administration formally revoking Connecticut's designation of Tri-State as the MPO for southwestern Connecticut, effective June 30, 1981.^[39] The state's formal withdrawal from the compact became effective on May 1, 1982, triggering the commission's complete dissolution.^[40]

Federal policy changes

The commission's collapse coincided with a fundamental shift in federal urban policy under the "New Federalism" of the Reagan administration. The administration sought to devolve power from the federal government to the states, which it accomplished by consolidating many specific urban programs into broader block grants and by eliminating federal oversight mechanisms.^[6] This included a significant change in funding priorities; in 1981–82, federal funding for regional planning from HUD was discontinued, making the U.S. Department of Transportation the primary federal funding source for MPOs.^[41] The most significant change for the commission was the rescission of OMB Circular A-95. On July 14, 1982, two weeks after the commission ceased operations, Executive Order 12372 withdrew the A-95 process and shifted intergovernmental review to state systems.^[7][6] This eliminated the core federal mandate that had served as the primary source of the commission's authority and revenue, removing the functional justification for many of its activities.^[10]

Successor organizations and administrative handoff

With between $800 million and $900 million in annual federal transportation aid at stake for New York alone, the establishment of successor agencies was critical. To ensure the continued flow of funds, the commission's functions were transferred to a decentralized system of state- and county-based successor agencies before it officially closed. In New York, planners from New York City, Long Island, and the lower Hudson Valley counties formed a temporary authority that would become the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC), the new federally designated MPO for the New York portion of the region.^[42] In New Jersey, the responsibilities were assumed by existing sub-regional bodies, such as the Northeast New Jersey Transportation Coordinating Committee, which provided the framework for what eventually became the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority.^[43]

In Connecticut, Governor O'Neill designated six new MPOs to assume Tri-State's responsibilities, effective June 30, 1981: the Central Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments, the Housatonic Valley Council of Elected Officials, the South Central Connecticut Regional Council of Elected Officials, the South Western Regional MPO, the Greater Bridgeport Regional MPO, and the Valley Regional MPO.^[39] The designations for the Greater Bridgeport and Valley regions were temporary; on January 1, 1982, they were replaced by a single consolidated MPO, resulting in a total of five successor MPOs for the six former Tri-State regions in Connecticut.^[39][41] This transition marked a shift from a single, unified regional body to a more fragmented system where cross-state coordination became a matter of inter-agency agreement rather than the mandate of a single commission.

Legacy and impact

Contemporary assessments emphasized both the technical achievements and institutional limits of an interstate regional body operating within the American federal system. William B. Shore, senior vice president of the Regional Plan Association, wrote in 1987 that the commission was "cashiered not for bold intrusions, but for failing to relate its substantial research to practical policies."^[44] The Regional Development Guide provided a durable framework for subsequent land use and infrastructure planning. The commission’s data systems, including square-mile cells and census processing, influenced agency practice across the region and supported analytical capabilities adopted by successor organizations. At the same time the commission’s experience illustrated the constraints of a planning body without direct implementation authority and the vulnerabilities that arise when functions and funding hinge on federal mandates that may be reversed.^{[1][2][10][17]}

Publications and archival sources

The commission produced annual reports, technical memoranda, county profiles, environmental plans, and transportation studies. Selected titles cited in scholarship include the 1962 Prospectus for Tri-State Transportation Committee, the 1968 Regional Development Plan, a series of county regional profiles, a 1970 Environmental Management Plan, a 1969 Regional Recreation Lands Plan, and multi-volume transportation planning documentation across the 1970s. Contemporary reviews and histories draw on the U.S. General Accounting Office’s 1982 report on Westway, Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations studies on substate regional bodies, and scholarly analyses of metropolitan governance and program administration.^{[11][1][29][30][3][9][17]}

See also

• Gateway Program (Northeast Corridor)