[§279E-1]  Statement of purpose. 
The legislature finds that Section 112 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973,
Section 9 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended, and other
federal law require that a metropolitan planning organization be designated to
act as an advisory urban transportation planning organization and to receive
certain funds for the purpose of carrying out continuing, comprehensive,
cooperative urban transportation planning.  It is further suggested that the
organization be established under specific state legislation to coordinate
metropolitan transportation planning.



The Oahu Transportation Planning Program, a
quasi-agency presently charged with coordinating transportation planning on
Oahu has been unable to satisfy federal requirements for a "continuing,
comprehensive, and cooperative", transportation planning process.  As a
result, the Federal Highway Administration and the Urban Mass Transportation
Administration have decertified Oahu transportation programs for federal
funding.  This problem has resulted in statewide concern about the effects of
decertification because of its impact on transportation programs and
consequently employment and also because Oahu contains the greater part of the State's
population and employment.



In order to be recertified, it is mandatory
that a Metropolitan Planning Organization be established and designated by the
State as soon as possible.  Loss of all federal planning and construction funds
for transit and transportation will continue until this is done.



This MPO will be primarily an advisory body to
the legislature and the legislative body of the appropriate county in affairs
involving the continuous, comprehensive, cooperative urban transportation
planning for the county.  This chapter is designed to provide the mechanism by
which orderly and reasoned urban transportation planning can take place within
the framework of federal law and the need to provide for adequate and informed
representation from both the state and county governments and the public at
large.



It is appropriate that each unit of general
purpose government within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Planning
Organization shall have adequate representation on the Metropolitan Planning
Organization.  The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), will, utilizing
input from appropriate state and city agencies, coordinate and develop a
prospectus and a unified planning work program, a transportation plan and a
transportation improvement program including an annual element of projects
recommended for funding in order to provide this advice to legislative and
government agencies.  It is very important that the delineation of state and
county functions relating to transportation within the metropolitan area be
carefully considered in the designation of the MPO.



Hawaii's state government differs markedly from
most mainland states.  Hawaii has a two-tier government:  the State and the
various counties.  The state government functions as a general purpose
government having the responsibility for many programs, such as public
education, health, welfare and judiciary, which are usually controlled by local
government in mainland states.  In addition, land use, through the state land
use commission, is generally determined by the State rather than by the
counties as is usually the case on the mainland.  In transportation, the state
government has responsibility for such normally local government programs as
airports, bikeways, harbors and waterways.



Hawaii's two-tier government did not come about
by accident; it was the result of careful consideration and study of Hawaii's unique geographic configuration.  As a state comprised of islands, Hawaii has four counties, each consisting of separate islands and consequently not
contiguous.



Because the State of Hawaii is comprised of
islands, much of the transportation planning done by the State is designed to
facilitate transportation solely within the county in which the project is
built.  Obviously, a state highway built on the island of Oahu will only serve
that island.  Hence, for example, the State's three major defense highways,
H-1, H-2 and TH-3, which are all located on Oahu, while designated as state
highways, serve only the transportation needs of the residents of Oahu.  However, this is entirely consistent with the present delineation of roadway
functions in Hawaii.  The State is generally responsible for providing highway
facilities that facilitate inter-community transportation, with the counties
primarily responsible for local intra-community streets and roads.  As a
result, the State has by design a major portion of the responsibility for
transportation in each county, and more importantly for that part of the
transportation network most closely related to and impacting on planning in
general and transportation planning in particular.



Unlike most mainland states, Hawaii has only
one urbanized area, the City and County of Honolulu, where eighty-one per cent
of the State's population reside.  In transportation, the State has programmed
approximately $149 million dollars in new highway facilities for Oahu in fiscal
year 1976 as compared to approximately $31 million dollars by the City and County of Honolulu.  Additionally, the State's major airports and harbors are located on Oahu.  In short, the State has responsibility for most of the major transportation
facilities and projects on Oahu and any designation of an MPO must take this
into account.  Designation of an MPO which does not provide for significant
state participation simply does not recognize the existing delineation of state
and county functions relating to transportation in Hawaii.



The MPO must be designed to prevent the type of
situation which led to the decertification of the OTPP; it must have its own
coordinating staff independent of either state or county agencies; it must be
accessible and accountable to the public; and it must provide for public input.



The purpose of this chapter is to establish and
specify the role of the organization to be designated by the governor as the
MPO as required by 23 United States Code 134 and Section 4(a) of the Urban Mass
Transportation Act of 1964, as amended, (49 U.S.C. 1603(a)) which requires
comprehensive planning of transportation improvements. [L 1975, c 180, §1]