Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 64
64 New Cooperative Operations Collaboration control over a limited set of facilities, but examples already exist where SO&M applications are managed by such entities New regional operations relationships have been established including, in some cases, control of the law enforcement func- either through a consolidation of the SO&M responsibilities tion. This model has limited relevance at the present time, in (state and local) of existing public agencies into a new entity the absence of a separate financial base via user fees and a pric- or through a new set of planning and operations collabora- ing orientation. In the long run, the introduction of mileage tive relationships. These types of organizations appear to fees, possibly combined with publicly regulated private oper- reflect willingness on the part of state DOTs to devolve com- ating franchises, might approximate this model. plex metropolitan or regional multijurisdictional operating activities, rather than lead such efforts themselves. There are several entities of this type in the United States, Combinations and Evolutions most of which were established in the 1990s, that were incen- The above alternatives are not entirely exclusive and some tivized by FHWA incentive funding (currently less available). evolutions are clearly possible. For example, the first two These entities do not assume all of a state DOT's SO&M func- models are not inconsistent with an incremental approach as tions and activities and have dedicated purposes that vary a response to resource limitations or a performance manage- widely. Some have coordinated planning functions and one or ment driven policy, with state DOTs maintaining essential more real-time operations functions, such as traffic conditions control over policy, resources, and activities. At each stage in analysis and dissemination (TransCom), TMC, arterial and/or such an evolution, more and more attention to performance freeway operations (FAST, TSSIP, NITTEC, FAST-TRAC), (oversight rather than execution) is implied. With each stage, incident management and HOT operations (TranStar), bridge there are also more substantial changes in the roles of public and tunnel operations coordination and resource allocation entities. (BATA), and weather information development and dis- In Table 9.1, the four models are described and compared semination (CLARUS). to the incremental approach in terms of the key institutional As this model exists in several versions in the United States, elements. The last row in the table also assesses the likelihood several examples have been described and compared to illus- of each model to advance SO&M quickly. trate key features and differences, presented in Appendix E. The most interesting features include: Implications of Alternative · Membership and lead agency--typical local government- Models Regarding Key led consortium. Institutional Issues · Scope and span of control over distinct regional activities-- The following sections expand on the implications of these wide variation, but normally includes local and state alternative models relative to the key elements of institutional facilities. architecture. · Degree of formality of formation--legislation or memo- randum of understanding. Culture and Leadership · Use of TMC and colocation--in most cases. · Funding--typically voluntary from multiple sources. The incremental approach, as a baseline, is structured toward increasing levels of understanding and orientation toward SO&M as a formal program. Outsourcing and public­private Public Utility Model partnerships introduce partial or substantial changes in the busi- This model, presumed to apply to a statewide program, is by ness model, reflecting not only an introduction of a new DOT definition privately managed and funded by user fees, under mission and responsibility (and improved cooperation with public policy and regulatory oversight. There is no known other public entities) but also an adjustment in the appropriate example in highway-related SO&M. The closest examples are role of the public sector versus the private sector, e.g., the public regional transit authorities that provide transit operations at sector sets policy and standards and provides performance- the metropolitan (or regional) scale, with professional man- based oversight to private sector entities who actually perform agement and local and state government boards of directors. the function. The policy underlying such a change in the busi- These authorities are not self-supporting from user fees, and ness model is already evident in large-scale asset management they depend on state and local tax sources. An emerging ver- contracts of several states and is also reflected in public­ sion of a public utility model may be public authority or pri- private toll road development. The development of a new vate HOT and toll road development and operations at the public entity represents a public acceptance of the importance network level. This represents a high level of operational of SO&M and the need for intensive cooperation. The

OCR for page 64
Table 9.1. Characteristics of Alternative Institutional Models Baseline-- Program Incremental Change Outsourcing (PPP) Managed incremental Outsourcing all field New Cooperative Public Utility improvements as per activities into single Operating Entity Independent entity Operations Capability contract, including Establishment of with separate Maturity Model with Activity oversight--on long-term regional operating management and minimal change Outsourcing basis to achieve entity as joint venture resource base, in organization Selected operations partnership (U.K. of agencies with enterprise (current status, activities individually Highway Authority, regional operations- management, and Model most DOTs) outsourced toll authority model) related jurisdiction public regulation Culture · Dependency on · Presumes · Reduced depen- · New culture of · Established with widespread increased dency on internal customer service operations- understanding/ understanding/ understanding/ oriented culture acceptance of oper- acceptance of acceptance of ational mission operational operational mission · Slow to change via mission as core as core function external, internal function · Change in mindset education · Change in mindset from program execu- from execution to tion to performance oversight oversight · Reduction in · Reduction in direct direct customer customer contact contact Leadership · Heavily dependent · Heavily dependent · May be influenced · (Presumably) · Leadership on external (political) on external (politi- somewhat by selected to new selected for factors cal) factors outsourcing orientation mission operations · Requires leadership · Presumes degree · Presumed partner- experience and of mainstreaming ship orientation leadership management Organization · Consolidation of · Reduced staffing · Minimal staffing · Minimal staffing · Organization and fragmented units requirements requirements requirements developed Staffing · Development of full · Development of · Development of full · Establishment specifically functions required full functions functions required for of full functions for real-time · Shortfall in technical required planning/funding only required for plan- service and management · Core capacity · Core capacity ning/funding only provision · Need for training in maintenance maintenance · Core capacity · Full operational specialties maintenance functions provided · Technical capacity retained from market · Flexibility in staff as needed Resource · (Programming and · Establishes activity · Establishes program · Likely to outsource · Independent Allocation budgeting assumed) level resource level resource most functions funding source · Reduced fragmenta- commitment commitment · Establishes program from state tion and increased · Impact of changes · Funding level explicitly level resource budget or span of agency con- in level is external related to performance commitment user fees trol of resources · Flexibility in · Impact of changes in · Funding level explic- response level is external itly related to · Flexibility in response performance Partnerships · Relationships · Performance · Performance · Performance · Presumes informal contracting contracting contracting assumption · Slow realignment of key roles due to independent as essential missions, resources for effective oper- · Relationships ations formal (MOU) · Involves realloca- tion of functions from DOTs, PSAs Capability to · Moderate · Moderate · High · High · High Advance · Note: Can be SO&M combined with Quickly program outsourc- ing and/or new cooperative entity models