Reinventing the Urban Interstate: A New Paradigm for Multimodal Corridors (2011)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

60 This chapter addresses the roles of institutional stakeholders typically involved in multimodal corridor development projects and the relationships among them that are needed for the projects to be successful. Corridor responsibilities are often divided among a host of different agencies. Local governments typically have responsibility for land use; state highway depart- ments design, build, and operate freeways; transit agencies plan, build, and operate transit services; and federal transportation agencies provide funding and oversight. Multimodal corridors require close collaboration among these and other institutions that may not typically work together. This chapter discusses the institutional histories and perspectives of these stakeholders and how these narratives inform their roles and responsibilities when collaborating on new paradigm projects. Although the history of multimodal corridors and the various stakeholders involved in these past projects is briefly discussed in Chapter 2, this chapter focuses on the important historical developments of key new paradigm agencies and the potential for developing new institutional relationships among them. New Institutional Relationships New institutional relationships are often needed to capture the benefits of new paradigm corridors. Multimodal systems require cooperation and collaboration among different levels of government (that is, federal, state, regional and local), differ- ent agencies with mode-specific missions (for example, state highway departments, transit agencies, and city streets and roads departments), and different public agencies with diver- gent missions (for example, city land use planning departments and transit agencies). Inter-agency agreements and new legis- lation may be needed to allow new uses of rights-of-way, new types of partnerships, and new approaches to facility opera- tions and management. Multimodal Institutional Settings Many barriers to building new paradigm corridors are institutional. The U.S. interstate freeway system was largely built by single-purpose state highway departments. Many of our post-World War II transit systems were built by agencies created solely for the purpose of building and operating them. This single-purpose agency model is well-suited to building unimodal transportation systems, but presents obstacles to planning, building, and operating new paradigm multimodal corridors. The transportation system is multimodal by nature. Each agency type—transit, state DOT, local governments, MPOs— can and often do coordinate multimodal transportation services out of necessity. But new paradigm multimodal corridors derive their benefits from planned and coordinated multimodal systems, not from multimodalism as an after- thought. Building a new paradigm multimodal corridor requires highway and transit agencies (among others) to coordinate and collaborate on a day-to-day basis throughout all phases of project planning, design, construction, and operations. The institutional gaps between these agencies can create barriers that must be overcome to plan and develop a multimodal corridor. New paradigm projects require con- scious, determined, and continuous efforts on the part of all stakeholders to identify, understand, and overcome these institutional gaps. Bridging the Multimodal “Gaps” Between Unimodal Agencies The landscape of agencies and stakeholders involved in multimodal corridor projects includes many agencies organized to fulfill a single, and often unimodal, purpose. Over time, these agencies have changed and new ones have been formed to address multimodal challenges. One of the most important C H A P T E R 6 The Institutional Landscape for Multimodal Corridors in the United States

61 challenges is that multimodal projects must comply with all the local, regional, state, and federal regulations governing highways and the rules from the same that apply to transit. Understanding how to bridge these gaps and create success- ful new paradigm multimodal corridor projects requires an understanding of how these agencies were formed and how they have changed. State DOTs provide perhaps the best example of agencies that started as unimodal, highway construction organizations, that have evolved over the years to become more multimodal and more collaborative. Many state DOTs were shaped by the objective of building the interstate system—using uniform standards established at the national level—and they did this well. These DOTs were not accustomed to planning and operating facilities for other modes such as transit, paratransit, bicycling, or walking—those not explicitly incorporated into the original interstate highway system.1 Similarly, transit agencies are important in multimodal corridor projects, but they generally focus on operating and maintaining their existing services. As a result, when calls are made for transit agencies to expand and include planning for transit-oriented development and pedestrian and bike ac- cess to their systems, agencies often think that this will be more than they can handle.2 As a result, transit and highway agencies in particular can appear to serve distinctly different constituencies, and the skill sets valued in one agency are not always transferable to the other. This can hinder effective co- ordination on multimodal projects. Other agencies have evolved to bridge the gaps between unimodal transit and state DOTs and provide multimodal coordination. Some local governments and their transportation departments offer a multimodal focus, if at a smaller geo- graphical scale. Local governments also control land uses, a critical component necessary to build new paradigm corridors. However, local governments typically do not control the key facilities of a multimodal corridor—the transit and freeway systems. To effectively coordinate modes within a larger, regional context, MPOs were created by federal mandate and given substantial powers to influence transportation finance, policy, and planning decisions within their jurisdictions. Nevertheless, MPOs are not typically charged with project construction or operational duties, so their effectiveness is largely a function of their capacities to influence and coordinate among their regional partners. Multiagency Partnerships: The Key to Building Successful New Paradigm Corridors The benefits of developing a new paradigm corridor are best ensured using multiagency partnerships, founded on the principles of shared responsibility and authority. The successes of Denver’s T-REX project, for example, are largely owed to the collaborative partnerships forged between numerous agencies in the project’s corridor. Sometimes, however, large collaborative teams can lead to suboptimal outcomes. In these cases (and in the case of the T-REX project) more advanced forms of cooperation can lead to successful new paradigm projects.3 Partnerships can take many forms, but new para- digm partnerships require a level of collaboration beyond those typically mandated by federal requirements for interagency coordination and consultation. Healey describes emerging approaches to government partnerships, which take two forms: • Consensus-building: working with key stakeholders to reach agreement and adoption of a common strategic policy agenda.3 When developing new paradigm multimodal cor- ridors, this is a critical first step in any partnership because coordination among modes in a corridor will yield perfor- mance benefits when all partners agree on the goals, objec- tives, and actions that will be shared by all partners. • Collaboration: a form of consensus-building with a strong emphasis on including all stakeholders and establishing the institutional mechanisms that will formalize and ensure the rights, responsibilities, and opportunities of all to participate in the decision-making process.3 New paradigm facilities are complex systems requiring collaboration among many stakeholders to share power, authority, and expertise. Sharing Power, Authority, and Expertise Partnerships work best when the lead agency (that is, the agency with the most responsibility and authority) yields some degree of control over the decision-making process to the partnership. In exchange, the partnership gains the expertise and political support of the other members and will be capable of building and operating a multimodal corridor 1Deakin, E., “The Social Impacts of the Interstate System: What are the Repercussions?,” TR News, May-June 2006, 244, p. 16. 2Deakin, E., G. Tal & K. Frick, “What Makes Public Transit a Success? Perspectives on Ridership in an Era of Uncertain Revenues and Climate Change,” Presented at the Transportation Research Board’s 89th Annual Meeting, 2010. 3Goldman, T. & E. Deakin, “Regionalism Through Partnerships? Metropolitan Planning Since ISTEA,” Berkeley Planning Journal 14 (2000): 46–75, http:// www.ced.berkeley.edu/pubs/bpj/pdf/bidl1405.pdf

62 that performs beyond what would be possible if the most powerful agency in the partnership worked alone.3 Such a high level of collaboration puts different strains and pressures on each partner agency. The organizational and in- stitutional history, culture, and legal mandates of each agency present different challenges to fully participating in the collab- orative process. The discussion that follows addresses these dif- ferent contexts as determined by the type of governmental agency involved. These include the organizational contexts of the federal Department of Transportation (USDOT), the state DOTs, transit agencies, and regional and local governments. The USDOT Context USDOT was originally established to fund and facilitate highway construction—a focus that has proven effective at building the nation’s interstate system, but has sometimes been an impediment to building effective multimodal corridors. In recent years the USDOT has evolved from being an agency focused exclusively on highway construction into an increas- ingly effective partner in facilitating multimodal corridors. USDOT strengths as a new paradigm project partner include • Working relationships with federal legislators and other policymakers who can help build political and financial support for a new paradigm project • Experience working with transportation planning, engi- neering, and construction firms • Active collaborations with state DOTs and transit agencies • An ability to set standards of practice in transportation planning, engineering and financing practices that could benefit new paradigm projects • An increasingly multimodal perspective, the result of a number of reforms both from within and outside of the federal government. This historical evolution from a highway-focused to a multi- modal agency make today’s USDOT a powerful advocate for and partner in building new paradigm corridors. These changes were marked by several watershed multimodal transformations, including the establishment of UMTA, the passage of ISTEA, and the changes under way in response to the increasing scarcity of federal transportation funds. The Establishment of the Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA) After passage of the 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act, USDOT engaged the states as partners in building the interstate highway system. In the 1950s and 60s, even as the intestate highway system began to yield tangible successes, a confluence of social movements and political shifts led USDOT to take a more multimodal approach to national transportation planning and financing. The creation of UMTA in 1964 was driven both by the rise of the environmental and antifreeway movements (see Chapter 2), and a recognition in Congress that the nation’s transit system was in decline and needed financial support similar to that given highways with the interstate program. Transit’s decline and the consequent need for a more multimodal USDOT became widely apparent after the passage of the Transportation Act of 1958. Prior to 1958, state governments were able to slow the decline of the nation’s passenger rail transit services by reviewing and declining petitions to abandon existing lines from railroad operators. The Transportation Act of 1958 moved control of this petition process from state governments—which generally favored maintaining passenger rail services—to the federal interstate commerce commission—which was given the man- date to “balance” the interests of passenger services with railroad profitability.4 This resulted in the immediate closing of several important commuter rail services and a public backlash that prompted key members of Congress to advocate for the establishment of a federal transit agency, originally known as UMTA.5 The largely grassroots antifreeway and environmental movements of the 1960s and 1970s also played an important role in the creation of UMTA. By the late 1960s, rising con- cerns about the effects of automobiles on the environment raised further questions about highway building and led to requirements for environmental reviews (NEPA, 1969). Argu- ments in favor of federal support for transit found traction in the John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson administrations, and the UMTA Act of 1964 created the possibility of a different image of the modern city, one with transit as a key travel mode. Once established, UMTA (later renamed, the Federal Tran- sit Administration) became important in financing and advo- cating for multimodal corridor projects, but it was the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act in 1991 that brought the practice of multimodalism to nearly every part of USDOT and its partner agencies across the United States. This multimodal perspective and its proliferation have made successful new paradigm project collaborations possible. ISTEA and the Multimodal Transformation of USDOT The passage of ISTEA in 1991 brought a fundamental shift in USDOT’s primary functions as a transportation policy and financing organization and dramatically improved the opportunities for multiagency collaboration and funding opportunities for new paradigm corridors. Prior to ISTEA, it was difficult to fund multimodal corridor projects since federal 4http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/resources/more/railroad_history/ 5http://www.fta.dot.gov/about/about_FTA_history.html

63 funds were limited to mode-specific uses and largely funding highway construction. Since ISTEA, federal funds are increas- ingly used for non-highway projects with greater opportunities for multimodal corridor projects. ISTEA also enhanced the role of intermodal regional governments (MPOs) in deciding which projects would receive federal funding. Nevertheless, significant barriers to federal transit project funding—and multimodal corridor project funding—remain. Thus far, requests for New Starts funds (the federal govern- ment’s fixed-guideway transit project financing program) have exceeded supply, and although FTA is authorized to fund up to 80 percent of the capital costs of a transit project, most projects receive less than half. This is compared to the Highway Trust Fund, which has traditionally provided 90 percent of construction costs for the interstate system6 (although this percentage has dropped in more recent years). Federal Transportation Project Funding: Advantages and Disadvantages for New Paradigm Projects Institutional impediments to new paradigm projects within USDOT remain, even as multimodalism has become more im- portant. For example, the New Starts program’s transit project funding evaluation process tends to have a higher level of scrutiny and accountability than highway projects, adding im- pediments to transit project funding and making new paradigm corridor funding more complex as a result. The current process only approves funding projects in the final design phase, neces- sitating a substantial local investment before funding from the federal government can be secured and adding an additional hurdle to transit projects compared to highway projects.7 These federal funding issues have tended to favor park- and-ride access, automobile-oriented multimodal corridor projects in the past. However, more recent federal funding trends suggest that transit-oriented new paradigm projects could have a better chance at attracting financing in the future. A Trend To Favoring Transit-Oriented New Paradigm Projects? It seems reasonable to speculate that recent trends in federal transit funding may tend to favor more transit-oriented new paradigm projects in dense, transit-friendly urban areas. During the past decade, the 10 largest metropolitan areas in the country received 62 percent of New Starts funding.8 FTA’s New Start’s evaluation criteria ranks projects highly that can show dense, transit-oriented land uses in the proposed corridor of operations.9 As a result, transit-oriented new paradigm multimodal corridor projects may fare better in competing against park- and-ride-oriented multimodal corridor projects that might have benefited from pre-New Starts funding priorities in the past. However, new paradigm projects are also faced with the increasing scarcity of federal transportation funds. The Era of Underinvestment— Federal Transportation Funding Scarcity In the current era of federal budget deficits, USDOT and Congress have struggled to maintain adequate funding levels for transportation. The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission concluded in their 2008 report that transportation investment needs require $225 billion per year. Meanwhile, we are currently only spending roughly 40 percent of this amount.10 Foremost among these challenges is the declining revenues from fixed-price gasoline taxes due to inflation. Even so, since this scarcity of transportation funds is a challenge that all projects and modes face, the multimodal nature of new paradigm projects may help make them more competitive for federal funds in the future since they offer the potential for cost-savings, multimodal coordination, reduced environmental impacts, and greater person-carrying capacities than competing unimodal projects. Working to fill the gap, local governments are increasingly levying sales taxes to fund transportation projects. In terms of planning practice, this has led to the devolution of trans- portation policy and fiscal responsibilities from the federal and state levels to the local level, with transportation invest- ment decisions often being made within the local legislative and political arenas.11 Therefore, it is possible that the success of new paradigm projects in the future will depend somewhat less on federal USDOT financing and policies and more on state, local, and regional decisions. 6Gifford, J., “The Exceptional Interstate Highway System: Will a Compelling New Vision Emerge?,” TR News, May–June 2006, 244, p. 10. 7Emerson, D. J. & J. D. Ensor, New Starts: Lessons Learned for Discretionary Federal Transportation Funding Programs, Bipartisan Policy Center, January 25, 2010, http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/library/report/new-starts-lessons-learned- discretionary-federal-transportation-funding-programs 8Emerson, D. J., “FTA New Starts: The ISTEA and TEA-21 Funding Commit- ments,” March 29, 2002, http://www.pbworld.com/news_events/publications/ technical_papers/pdf/44_FTA_New_Starts.pdf 9Deakin, E., C. Ferrell, J. Thomas, J. Mason. “Policies And Practices for Cost- Effective Transit Investments: Recent Experiences in the United States” Transportation Research Record 1799, 2002, pp. 1–9. 10Miller, D. L., “Testimony on the Financing of Future Investments in Highway and Mass Transit,” Before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives, Tuesday, March 17, 2009, http://budget.house.gov/hearings/2009/03.17.2009_ Miller_Testimony.pdf 11Wachs, M. & T. Goldman, “A Quiet Revolution in Transportation Finance: The Rise of Local Option Transportation Taxes,” Transportation Quarterly, 57, 1, Winter 2003, pp. 19–32.

64 The State DOT Context State DOTs in the United States were originally established in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as highway depart- ments. After World War II and the passage of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, state highway departments grew con- siderably as they took the lead role in planning, designing, building, and operating the interstate highway system. State DOT strengths as new paradigm project partners include • Real-world expertise at planning, designing, building, and operating highway facilities and networks • A close working relationship with USDOT, an important source of new paradigm project funding • Relationships with highway planning, engineering, and construction firms • Relationships with local governments, since state DOT highways often serve as primary travel arteries through and between cities and counties where new paradigm projects might be built • Access to alternate funding sources such as state trans- portation funds and county and city sales taxes that are playing an ever-increasing role in meeting the shortfall in available federal funds • An increasingly multimodal perspective, the result of a number of reform movements both from within and outside of state DOTs. The trend toward a more multimodal orientation has made state DOTs an important partner in new paradigm project collaborations. Multimodal Reform of State DOTs The so-called “freeway revolts” also had a profound influ- ence on the organizational structures of state DOTs. Many states added transit offices or divisions to their agencies and by the late 1960s and early 1970s, many had been renamed as departments of transportation (DOTs). For example, in California, the passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 69 in 1972 directed regional transportation planning agencies to develop their own multimodal transportation plans and the state’s highway department to combine them into a single, statewide multimodal transportation plan.12 This was followed a year later by changing the state DOT’s name from the Divi- sion of Highways to the California Department of Transporta- tion (Caltrans, for short). In the late 1970s, the state removed several major freeway construction elements of its statewide transportation plan, sending the message that the freeway- building era had come to a close.12 While the freeway revolts challenged the existing, highway- centric transportation planning, financing, and operational emphasis in the United States, they also served to broaden the constituencies that set transportation priorities, introducing new and more multimodal perspectives. Although some state DOTs resisted these pressures, others experimented with more collaborative methods of decision making. These DOTs led the way in transforming their institutional structures and developing a more multimodal perspective—a trend that made multimodal corridors an attractive option for many state DOTs. During this period of transition for state DOTs in the 1970s, the Oregon Department of Transportation’s (ODOT’s) role in the development of Portland’s MAX Blue/Red Line/ I-84 multimodal corridor project (then called the Banfield Corridor) is emblematic of the changes in state DOTs and their approaches to transportation planning. While originally ODOT seemed to favor a highway-only capacity expansion for the corridor, the agency signaled a shift when, for the first time in its history, it appointed a citizens’ advisory commit- tee for a regional transportation project—the Banfield Corri- dor Study. This study recommended the construction of the light rail line using the funds and right-of-way originally earmarked for the freeway expansion—arguably, one of the first successful cases of using federal highway funds for multi- modal corridor project construction. The most important lesson learned from ODOT’s experience is the need for state DOTs to incorporate the public into their decision-making processes. In doing so, ODOT helped change the trajectory of the Banfield Corridor, placing their agency in the role of accommodating the desires of the public for a truly multi- modal corridor. ODOT’s evolution reflects the changes taking place simul- taneously at state DOTs around the country as organizations redefined themselves as multimodal agencies responsive to societal pressures that favored multimodal transportation. Furthermore, this transformation is an example of how insti- tutional reform can make new paradigm multimodal corridor projects possible. ISTEA and the Multimodal Transformation of State DOTs Since state DOTs are often the owner-operators of freeway facilities, the successful development of a new paradigm multi- modal corridor often depends on their ability to function as multimodal agencies. This means they must be able to • Plan, build and manage freeways that accommodate transit and other modes • Work collaboratively with other agencies and stakeholders • Take advantage of flexible highway funds (ISTEA), using them for non-highway corridor improvements. 12Brown, J., “Statewide Transportation Planning: Lessons from California,” Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 56, No. 2, Spring 2002, pp. 51–56.

65 In practice, ISTEA has been somewhat inconsistent in influencing the multimodal transformation of state DOTs. When first passed, ISTEA required state DOTs to implement management systems and long-range plans. Unfortunately, these requirements were later relaxed and made optional. In a study by Lipsman and Walter of state DOTs in 1998— after ISTEA had been in effect for 7 years—many surveyed DOTs gave a relatively low level of attention to intermodal transportation.13 A 2007 study of seven state DOTs suggests these challenges persist, with respondent agencies reporting low levels of state funding for intermodal projects, investments in transit services, investments in bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and invest- ments in intermodal connecting facilities.14 Even within state DOTs, there are considerable differ- ences among departments and disciplines in embracing the multimodal implications of ISTEA. Although many have transformed their planning processes to a more multimodal approach, significant portions of these same agencies con- tinue to see themselves as highway-building and maintenance organizations.14 In practice, many institutional and political barriers re- mained in the years after ISTEA’s passage that prevented truly multimodal planning to flourish in many states, and as a consequence, pose a significant barrier to successful new paradigm projects as well. Despite the good intentions behind ISTEA’s flexible funding mandate, only a few states and their MPO partners have diverted funds from highways to other modes. Between 1992 and 1999, of the $33.8 billion in flexible funds available, only $4.2 billion or 12.5 percent was actually transferred from highways to transit, and of this amount, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, and California—all highly urbanized areas—accounted for one- third of these transfers. Metropolitan areas with the largest and most well-established transit agencies were the most likely to transfer funds from highway to transit projects.15 Reasons for the underuse of flexible funding vary, but an important one has been a continued emphasis within state DOTs on what they saw as their mission to complete the Interstate Freeway System.16 Lipsman and Walter’s (1998) survey of state DOTs found they were struggling to incorporate multimodalism into their business models. When asked to rank the importance of eleven multimodal issues, the top three identified were highway-focused: urban rail-highway conflicts, rural rail-highway conflicts, and intercity bus and rail terminal joint location. When asked what aspects of their transportation systems they modeled, they indicated that traffic models of state highway operations were twice as com- mon as were any other infrastructure needs. In general, state DOT respondents indicated that their multimodal analytic skills needed upgrading to meet the multimodal expectations of ISTEA.13 Whether multimodal corridor projects are seen as a help or a hindrance to achieving this goal often depends on the degree to which state DOTs have successfully transitioned from a highway-oriented to a multimodal agency in line with the intent of ISTEA. Colorado’s Transportation Expansion (T-REX) project offers important insights into the perspectives of state DOTs involved in multimodal corridor projects. While a partner- ship consisting of the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), Denver’s MPO (DRCOG), the Regional Denver’s Regional Transit District, and numerous local governments within the corridor commissioned the Major Investment Study in 1995, CDOT and FHWA were concerned that the recom- mendations were too transit-oriented and contained only minor freeway capacity improvements. At this point, the part- nership took a step back, reassessed their priorities, and decided to focus on improvements that would enhance mobility for all modes of travel in the corridor, not just transit. As a result, they eventually identified a combination of freeway widening and light rail improvements that would satisfy CDOT, FHWA, and the transit interests in the partnership.12 With this balance of multimodal improvements, the stakeholders were able to support the proposed alternative. Equally important, this cross-agency collaborative structure and the widely supported multimodal package of improvements that resulted yielded additional benefits later. In 1999 when the project’s federal funds were as yet unavailable, the voters passed Referendum A, allowing CDOT to borrow money for construction against those unallocated federal funds— a testament to the strength of the multiagency partnership that was able to rally public voter support to keep the project on track.12 The Way Forward for State DOTs: Promoting the Promise of Multimodal Planning Several states have taken the lead in transforming their DOTs from highway departments into multimodal organizations. Colorado provides an important example of how the collab- oration required for multimodal projects led to a transforma- tion of the agency. With the growing strength of the state’s MPOs after the passage of ISTEA, CDOT found it was necessary to collaborate with MPOs and a wide variety of other stake- holders in order to achieve these aims. 13Lipsman, M. & C. W. Walter, “Response of State Transportation Planning Programs to the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991,” Crossroads 2000 Proceedings, Ames: Iowa State University, August 20, 1998, pp. 167–171. http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/pubs/crossroads/167response.pdf 14Goetz, A. R., et al., “Assessing Intermodal Transportation Planning at State Departments of Transportation,” World Review of Intermodal Transportation Research 2007; Vol. 1, No. 2 pp. 119–145. 15Puentes, P., “Flexible Funding for Transit: Who Uses It?,” Center on Urban & Metropolitan Policy, The Brookings Institution, May 2000. 16http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c102:2:./temp/∼c102DxKBg6:e1910:

66 In the last decade, this transformation has been reflected in CDOT’s organizational structures. In 2004, CDOT created several new divisions that would place more emphasis on multimodal planning, public transit, and collaborative plan- ning techniques. CDOT’s Division of Transportation Develop- ment has grown substantially and now houses an intermodal planning branch to address transit, bicycle, and pedestrian modes, as well as transportation demand management (TDM). This widened perspective includes a greater emphasis on freight planning within this multimodal planning unit.14 These changes have also taken root in CDOT’s approach to planning activities. Multimodal and collaborative processes used to create elements of CDOT’s recent long-range plan were cited by an FHWA study as representative of best practices.14 California’s DOT (Caltrans) responded to calls from the electorate for more multimodal planning and operations by setting up the Corridor System Management Plan (CSMP) process. CSMPs are designed to evaluate how a travel corridor is performing, determine why it is performing that way, and identify system management strategies to improve the cor- ridor’s performance. There are two key elements to the CSMPs that break new ground for Caltrans. First, the analytic process is focused on corridor mobility, rather than simply on the performance of a state highway, allowing consideration of a broad range of modes and facilities. Second, the CSMP process embraces collaboration with MPOs and other local government stake- holders as the key to successful transportation system man- agement, planning, and project delivery. In the San Francisco Bay Area, Caltrans District 4 has developed a collaborative process for CSMPs with the region’s MPO. As a result, CSMPs produced in the Bay Area are increasingly addressing multi- modal issues and present an opportunity to develop new paradigm corridor projects as well. Many other states have taken similar steps to organize their operations around multimodalism. Florida DOT has a Public Transportation Administrator that is responsible for coordinating department involvement in intermodal trans- portation issues. Louisiana DOT has established an Office of Public Works and Intermodal Transportation that includes Aviation, Public Transportation, and Marine & Rail Transpor- tation sections. Mississippi DOT has an Office of Intermodal Planning that houses their Aeronautics, Planning, Public Transit, Rails, and Ports & Waterways divisions. Texas DOT has established a Multimodal Planning team that provides technical expertise for the development of their statewide intermodal plan.14 Nevertheless, creating a DOT department tasked with multimodal planning or being a liaison to public transit agen- cies and MPOs is a far cry from changing state DOT culture and approach to highway planning, design, and operations, let alone getting a new paradigm project built. A recent study of multimodal planning at state DOTs reveals that many agen- cies have made significant strides in this arena in recent years, incorporating multimodal planning techniques into their long- and short-range plans. Colorado, Florida, Arizona, and Louisiana were recently cited by an FHWA study as success- fully incorporating multimodal elements into their long- range plans.14 However, many of the respondents expressed concern about the continued highway orientation of many state DOTs, a lack of funding for multimodal projects in general, and too little investment in or attention to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities and the intermodal connec- tors needed to integrate these modes.14 The Transit Agency Context Like state DOTs, transit agencies tend to have specific and focused missions—in this case, the planning, designing, con- structing, and operating of a transit system. This focus may tend to engender a view within transit agencies of freeways and the state DOTs that operate them as competitors. Even so, transit agencies often operate in freeway corridors and on freeways themselves. As a result, efforts to enhance transit services in freeway corridors through cross-agency partnerships can find willing and enthusiastic partners in transit agencies. Efforts to build a multimodal corridor require active transit agency involvement. Whether this is obtained through part- nering with an existing transit agency or by the creation of a project-specific one is a question that should be addressed at the earliest point possible in the conceptualization of the project. Once the transit agency partner is identified and engaged in the project planning process, it is often found that they bring real strengths to the partnership. Transit agency strengths include: • Real-world expertise at planning, designing, building, and operating transit infrastructure. • A direct business relationship with existing transit riders and an understanding of the transit ridership market. These contacts can be particularly useful when advocating for project financing and building political support for the proposed multimodal corridor project. Transit agencies often have working relationships and familiarity with local transit advocates as well, offering an additional source of support for the proposed multimodal corridor project. • Relationships with transit planning, engineering, and construction firms. These contacts are particularly useful when preliminary cost estimates of project alternatives are needed as well as judgments regarding the feasibility of these alternatives. • Relationships with local elected officials. Transit agency governing boards are often populated with local politicians

67 who have contacts either with local government com- missions and boards or with representatives of these local government-elected officials themselves. Many transit agencies use these advantages within collabora- tive transportation planning efforts to great effect. In particular, transit agencies advocate for multimodal solutions to trans- portation problems and as new paradigm project partners with access to various federal, state, and local project funding sources. Transit Agencies as Agents of Multimodal Compromise In the case of the T-REX multimodal corridor project (see Figure 6-1), Denver’s Regional Transit District (RTD) played a critical role in helping forge a compromise between the highway and transit interests in the corridor during the project planning process. Perhaps due in part to the wide variety of interests involved in the study, the initial Major Investment Study (MIS) was largely transit-oriented in its recommendations with relatively minor freeway improve- ments. However, FHWA and CDOT advocated for freeway- widening measures and after discussion, the lead agencies agreed that the MIS placed too much emphasis on transit. The RTD’s director reported, “We looked at ways to break down the freeway versus transit rivalry and started looking at mobility,” and started to, “. . . look at freeway and transit as coordinated pieces of a comprehensive strategy to maximize mobility in a project with limited available right of way. We set our sights on a project that was a win-win [proposition] for both transit and freeway. What emerged was the T-REX project.”17 These efforts to bridge the gap between freeway and transit interests also yielded a revised Major Investment Study for the corridor that combined freeway widening (with up to seven lanes in each direction) with fixed-rail transit improvements— a mix that all the project partners could support. Transit Agencies as New Paradigm Project Funding Champions The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) increased transit capital funding to $52.6 billion over six years, an increase of 46 percent over TEA-21 levels. These increases in available transit capital funds suggest transit agencies can play a critical role in obtaining funds for new paradigm multimodal projects.18 The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), the successor to ISTEA, also brought changes to the relationship between transit agencies and the federal government. The most prominent change was the elimination of federal operating assistance to transit agencies in urban areas of more than 200,000. Operating expenses—including employee wages and benefits, vehicle maintenance, fuel expenses—typically account for more than two-thirds of a transit agency’s annual expenses. Since the federal government had been trying to reduce its commitments to funding transit operating expenses for years,19 transit agencies were able to fill this funding gap with local revenue sources. Over the past two decades, transit agencies have adjusted to the reality of reduced funding Source: Colorado Department of Transportation, T-REX Fact Book. Figure 6-1. Denver’s T-REX Project. 18Millar, W. W., “Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy for Users: A Guide to Transit-Related Provisions,” http://www. publictransportation.org/resources/laws/safetea_lu_brochure.asp#link2 19Brown, J. “Paying for Transit in an Era of Federal Policy Change,” Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2005. 17Civil Engineering News- Spotlight on Building The Future-T-REX project, http://www.cenews.com/article.asp?id=1314

68 support from federal and state sources with funds from local sales taxes, gas taxes, and local government general revenue sources. Nationally, from 1984 to 2001, the average share of transit agency operating expenses that came from local dedi- cated sales taxes grew from 11.8 to 19.6 percent,19 a 66 percent increase. This agility at accessing funds speaks to the substantial political influence transit agencies can draw on within their operating jurisdictions and makes them potentially powerful partners in new paradigm projects. The MPO Context MPOs can play important roles in new paradigm projects as consensus-builders, planners, financiers, and political support builders at all levels of government. Their influence and potential effectiveness as multimodal project partners flow both from above and below in the government hierarchy, with their connections to federal, state, and local governments. MPOs coordinate short- and long-term transportation plan- ning and federal funds programming for their regions. But their decision-making powers come from below, as their gov- erning bodies are typically run by boards of constituent local government representatives.20 The wide-ranging scope of their responsibilities for trans- portation modes in their region, their role as the funding con- duit from the federal and state levels to local modal agencies, and their mandate to coordinate and prioritize the various transportation projects throughout their regions offer an op- portunity to facilitate multiagency partnerships that are central to new paradigm projects. MPO agency strengths in multimodal, new paradigm project partnerships include • Regional-level planning and project financing expertise • Access to funding from multiple levels of government • Ongoing, staff-to-staff-level working relationships and partnerships with local transit agencies, governments, state DOTs, and USDOT • Commission/board representatives typically drawn from local government administrative and elected officials MPOs: Potential New Paradigm Consensus-Builders Nevertheless, these MPO strengths can also manifest them- selves as shortcomings and obstacles when undertaking a new paradigm project. With the exception of a few select funding programs MPOs do not have direct authority over federal funding decisions, but share these duties with state DOTs. An MPO’s plans and funding decisions are only a component of their state’s transportation improvement plan (STIP), but the MPO’s portion of the STIP must have the approval of the MPO to have official recognition from the federal govern- ment. Therefore, to be effective new paradigm partners, MPOs are at their best when working as consensus-builders. As a result, the state retains the official power over federal transportation funding allocations, but the MPOs can ob- struct the state’s power, forcing them to submit an incom- plete STIP for approval to the federal government.20 This role as potential spoiler is just one example of the double-edged nature of MPO powers. MPOs must navigate the political waters between their various partner agencies and overuse of their veto powers can disrupt the working relationships they have with their partner agencies. As a result, MPOs work best when they refrain from using their admin- istrative “sticks” and rely on collaborative decision-making techniques to reach consensus with their partners. If MPOs emphasize these techniques, they can play a significant role as new paradigm project consensus-builders and project financiers. However, MPOs are increasingly being given more prominent roles as multimodal project advocates, financiers, and even operators. High-Profile MPOs: Dangers and Possibilities Some MPOs are also taking control of existing, or devel- oping new, regional transportation funding sources. The San Francisco Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) offers a good example of this trend. Prior to 1997, Caltrans was responsible for collecting and spending San Francisco Bay Area toll bridge funds. In 1997, the state legislature shifted responsibility for these funds to a new entity, BATA, which was governed by the same board as the region’s MPO, the Metropolitan Transporta- tion Commission (MTC). MTC’s BATA has since used these toll monies to fund various projects around the region, in- cluding transit and highway projects in multimodal corridors. These projects include the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) expansion to Warm Springs in the Interstate 880 corridor and the addition of a fourth bore—effectively a freeway widening project—in the Caldecott Tunnel in the East Bay (BART) Pittsburg/Bay Point Line/S.R. 24 corridor. The use of these funds for projects geographically distant from the toll bridge facilities that generated them has raised some objections in the region, and MTC’s BATA has re- ceived some criticism for the process it uses to allocate these funds.20 So while MPOs seem to be growing in influence, in- cluding control over funding sources previously adminis- tered by other levels of government, they are also entering into a more politically high-profile realm that may have some negative consequences for new paradigm projects that re- quire collaboration with other agencies. 20Institute of Transportation Studies & ICF Consulting, “Metropolitan-Level Transportation Funding Sources,” December 2005, http://www.transportation. org/sites/planning/docs/NCHRP%208-36%2849%29%20Final%20Report.pdf

69 The effectiveness of MPOs in the future, both as revenue- collecting and project-financing bodies, will often depend on the cooperation of state DOTs. As seen with Caltrans and MTC, some states actively support new regionally based transporta- tion funds. Indeed, where MPOs pursue a revenue collection and financing role that reduces state DOT responsibilities or replaces the need for scarce state funds, MPOs may find a willing and active partner at the state level. In some cases, however, state DOTs may perceive the financial empowerment of MPOs as a threat. Even states that willingly devolve respon- sibility to lower government levels may prefer to distribute that authority to counties rather than MPOs.21 To help build new paradigm project partnerships, the questions of roles, authority, and responsibilities need to be carefully and explicitly examined among project partners. While MPOs offer valuable qualities as a lead partner on new paradigm projects, each case will be different and the institu- tional relationships before, during, and after a new paradigm project is undertaken should be discussed, and in most cases, is best formalized in the form of joint powers agreements or other contractual mechanisms. The Local Government Context Local government participation and effectiveness are critical to the success of new paradigm corridors, both in the short and long terms. In the short term, the new paradigm approach requires effective local governments that can work with their partners to plan and build multimodal access facilities to and from the transit line’s stations and the freeway’s interchange ramps. In the long-term, the success of the new paradigm ap- proach requires local government cooperation to shape the land uses and the urban design qualities of the corridor to re- inforce and encourage the efficient and effective use of those facilities. Local government strengths in multimodal, new paradigm projects include • Ownership and control of access to corridor transit and freeway facilities • Ownership and control of on-street and (often) off-street parking facilities • Corridor land use controls • Close working relationships with corridor residents, busi- nesses, and politicians Typically, local governments control the surface street network and are responsible for zoning corridor land uses. Streets are, by their nature, multimodal facilities, and local governments have a vested interest in ensuring multimodal access to the land uses within their jurisdictions. Unfortunately, many of our existing freeway corridors are located in primarily automobile-oriented suburbs, where cars are often given pri- ority on local streets at the expense of pedestrians, bicycles, and transit vehicles. As discussed in previous chapters, an effective new paradigm transit line requires transit-oriented development clustered around its stations, while the freeway requires automobile- oriented development near its interchanges. Ultimately, the success of the new paradigm rests on the ability of local govern- ments to comprehensively plan and implement corridorwide land use configurations. However, despite their importance, local governments are sometimes overlooked as multimodal corridor partners since they do not (1) have control of project funding sources; (2) plan, design, or operate the primary transportation systems (the freeway and transit line); and (3) generally take the lead in partnership coordination. Policies and planning practices at the local government level can also hinder successful new paradigm corridor efforts. The land use policy barriers that disadvantage transit invest- ments are well documented and include exclusionary and fiscal zoning policies, restrictions on density, and parking subsidies. These policies also impede the development of multimodal capacity, and it is worth considering their effects. Inconsistencies in the way land use policies are implemented between local governments in the same corridor can also undermine the potential success of the new paradigm. Different communities along a corridor may have different or conflicting development policies and may compete for development. Comprehensive land use and access planning often depends on cooperation between local governments. However, to be effective advocates for matching growth patterns and access improvements to the needs of the transit line and freeway in a new paradigm corridor, it is best if local governments are given the power to pool their efforts and coordinate their policies and programs between neighboring jurisdictions. Research on comprehensive planning techniques in highway corridors suggests that these goals can be achieved either by empowering local governments with state legislation to encourage cooperation in land use planning or by creating regional agencies that have authority to do land use and transportation planning at a regional level.22 However, when local governments are determined to take a leadership role in new paradigm corridor development, state or other legislation may not be necessary. Indeed, although there are few examples of local governments taking a strong, 21Sciara, C. & M. Wachs, “Metropolitan Transportation Funding”, Public Works Management & Policy, 2007, Vol. 12, No. 1, 378–394. 22Carlson, D., and S. King. (1998). Linking Transportation and Land use by Fostering Inter-jurisdictional Cooperation Enabling Legislation in Eight States, Institute of Public Policy and Management, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

70 lead role in developing multimodal corridors, some of the most prominent examples of multimodal corridors in the United States owe their success to the efforts of local governments. Chicago provides a clear example of how successful city and county governments can be when they have the will and are given the authority. Early in the 20th century, planners had envisioned a “west side superhighway,” along the Con- gress Street corridor. In 1939, the City of Chicago created the Department of Subways and Superhighways, a multimodal planning and operations agency with a mandate to build this facility, later to be named the Eisenhower Expressway, as a combined freeway and rapid transit facility.23 The success of this early multimodal corridor project suggests that local governments can take the lead role in these projects, but they must be given the authority and resources to carry out their mission. Similarly, the success of Washington DC’s Orange Line/ I-66 corridor, which has the highest transit ridership of any multimodal corridor researched here, is due in no small part to the active participation and influence of Arlington County’s local government. These agencies fought to have the Orange Line diverge from its in-median alignment along I-66 and travel at a half-mile distance to the south through its planned commercial centers. By influencing the right-of-way choice for the transit line in this multimodal corridor, they were able to coordinate the land uses for the corridor as well, creating one of the most successful examples of a transit-oriented multi- modal corridor in the United States. Interagency and Intermodal Cooperation and Collaboration Getting a multimodal corridor built is one thing, but build- ing a successful, balanced, and coordinated new paradigm corridor requires a unique combination of collaboration, flexibility, and single-minded tenacity on the part of the project’s stakeholders. There are many causes of a lack of coordination between local governments, transit agencies, USDOT, and state DOTs that need to be taken into account when undertaking a new paradigm project. These include • Limited resources. Even the best of intentions to coordinate among new paradigm corridor partners can be thwarted by a lack of financial, staff, or real estate resources. A lack of financial resources can prevent the planning and construc- tion of station access facilities and services such as green connectors and neighborhood shuttles and the acquisition of intelligent transportation system infrastructure that can facilitate freeway-to-transit intermodal transfers. A lack of experienced and available staff from partner agencies to work on the new paradigm project can keep the best corridor plans on a shelf gathering dust. A lack of available real estate in the corridor can prevent a new paradigm project from achieving its intended land use aims. • Conflicting priorities. New paradigm project partners often have many competing projects, constituencies, and agen- das among them and within their own organizations. Local governments, in particular, face these conflicts when the project corridor runs through other local government juris- dictions as well. In these cases, it can be difficult to reach consensus on development priorities in the corridor. • Ineffective regulations. New paradigm projects, particularly those that seek to dramatically reshape corridor urban form and circulation patterns, can fail to meet expectations unless local governments are either willing to coordinate and share their land use or planning powers with other partner agencies, or cede those powers to a corridor- or regional-level agency. Often, a change in regulations is needed to facilitate this cooperation or consolidation of powers. • Controversial issues. Existing controversies within and between communities and governments can thwart a new paradigm project, particularly if the project imposes costs on one constituency and offers benefits to another. New paradigm project partners need to thoroughly understand the political landscapes of each corridor jurisdiction and invest the time and resources necessary to compensate for these issues. Therefore, public outreach efforts that engage project partners in meaningful dialog with local commu- nities are central to any successful new paradigm project. Successful outreach efforts require real commitment from project partner agencies to a process of open and honest, two-way communication with the community. If the flow of information is one-way, with partner agencies simply telling the community what their plans are without listening to the community’s concerns, values, and desires, multi- modal projects are likely to find increasing public opposition. Successful outreach efforts will also work to engage the attention of the media as a means to communicate to as wide an audience as possible and as an additional source of information on how the community is responding to the new paradigm project. When public outreach is done right, a new paradigm project will (1) face less community oppo- sition and fewer legal disputes that may delay the project and increase costs and (2) be more successful in the long term at serving the corridor and its communities. • Administrative procedures and obstacles. Although the barriers to project development imposed by governmental administrative procedures are often viewed in a negative light (and sometimes derided as “red tape”), typically there were good reasons why these laws and administrative pro- cedures were adopted. Often, they are the manifestations 23McClendon, D., Encyclopedia of Chicago, “Expressways,” http://www. encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/440.html

71 of hard-won compromises that should be understood and respected. Once the underpinnings of these procedures are understood, alternative and less onerous forms of admin- istrative oversight can often be identified that still meet the spirit and intentions of existing procedures while remov- ing many of the impediments they pose to new paradigm project development. Land use controls that work to sep- arate uses are a good example. Zoning codes that work to separate uses are intended to prevent pollution, vehicular traffic and other negative externalities from one use affecting another, but also tend to encourage the use of automobiles while suppressing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit activities. Form-based codes that regulate the relationships between building facades and the public realm instead of tradi- tional zoning methods that regulate uses can help encour- age pedestrian-oriented mixed-use development in a new paradigm corridor. The Critical Role of State Governments in New Paradigm Projects Beyond these basic reasons why effective collaboration is necessary, state DOTs can also play the role (along with USDOT) of the high-level arbiter among stakeholders, and when done properly, as a leader in formulating a vision of multimodal coordination at the policy level and as the agency leading big-picture multimodal planning efforts.24 States play an important role in encouraging effective partnerships in new paradigm corridor projects. Carlson and King (1998) identified certain common, key factors in states that allow local governments to successfully engage in inter- jurisdictional cooperation: • Coordinated financial incentives to encourage local govern- ment cooperation • Support for inter-agency collaboration by state officials • Public recognition in the state and the corridor that the state has land use and transportation problems that re- quire inter-jurisdictional solutions22 State legislation can help other new paradigm project stake- holders to collaborate, but research suggests that whether a state has such legislation or not, the willingness of a local government to partner with the DOT on corridor access management and land use issues is a critical factor determining the success of corridor planning efforts.25 Since multimodal corridors are often designed to take advantage of existing freeway rights-of-way as a means to add high-capacity transit, effective collaboration between state DOTs (who own and operate most freeway facilities in the United States), transit agencies, and MPOs (to name a few) is critically important. In the case of the Harbor Freeway Transitway project, the state’s DOT (Caltrans) worked closely with their regional and local corridor partners to help design, build, and operate the facility. This included a corridorwide approach to managing the transportation systems, with attention paid to the corridor’s arterial operations. In an effort to balance demand and capacity throughout the cor- ridor, Caltrans has worked with the corridor’s local govern- ments to identify and obtain funding for arterial operations improvements, including bus priority signals to improve local bus operations.26 In Arizona, the state’s DOT (ADOT) was a prime mover in developing the Casa Grande Accord, an agreement between the state and its MPOs on how to share ISTEA transportation revenues. ADOT led the development of this agreement as a negotiation process and based allocations on long-range strategic planning and comprehensive planning principles, rather than by fiat.27 While other states have struggled to effectively coordinate and foster cooperation among the state DOT and the MPOs, ADOT representatives surveyed cited cooperation among these groups as a strength, and specifically mentioned the Casa Grande Accord as the framework upon which this cooperative environment has been built.14 The successes of ADOT illustrate the paradox of ISTEA’s influence on state DOTs, particularly with regard to flexible funding. As of 1998, 7 years after the passage of ISTEA, a survey of state DOTs asked if they believed ISTEA had accomplished the objective of making federal funding more flexible for multimodal projects. Forty-three percent said it had not.13 It appears that while ISTEA created opportunities for state DOTs to use highway funds for multimodal projects, it also took control of some of these funds away from state DOTs and gave it to MPOs. As a result, if state DOTs made a conscious choice to embrace the multimodal vision and use highway funds for nonhighway projects, it would be most effective to do so as part of a collaborative effort with their MPO partners, as illustrated by ADOT’s successes. Right-of-Way Planning and Acquisition: Legal and Institutional Issues New paradigm multimodal corridors can be designed, owned, and operated in various ways, by a diverse collection 26Interview with Frank Quon, Caltrans, 11/12/09. 27http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/statewide/fcariz.htm 24Peyrebrune, H. L., “Multimodal Aspects of Statewide Transportation Planning,” Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Freeway Research Program Synthesis of Practice 286, Washington DC: National Academy Press, 2000, 3. 25Vanka1, S., S. Handy & K. Kockelman. “State-local Coordination in Managing Land Use and Transportation Along State Highways,” Manuscript Number UP/ 2003/022238, http://www.ce.utexas.edu/prof/kockelman/public_html/JUPD, InteragencyCoop.pdf

72 of project stakeholders. A transit guideway (bus, rail) could be installed by dedicating an additional lane, reconfiguring lanes to add a transitway, operating on shoulders or in the median, operating on above-grade guideways in highway airspace, or even operating below the surface in tunnels under the highway ROW. Alternatively, the transit ROW could be adjacent to but not part of the highway ROW. Stations could be on-line in medians, shoulders, air rights, or subsurface, or could be off-line with dedicated access ways to the transitway. Often, the quality and form of partnerships between new paradigm stakeholders will play an important role in deter- mining the way a high-capacity transit line is added to an existing freeway corridor. Design, ownership, and operation and maintenance func- tions can be handled in a variety of ways. For example, the highway agency (state, county, or local) could run the multi- modal facility. Alternatively, the highway agency could own the highway ROW and the transit operator the transit ROW, with each agency having responsibility for its own property, operations, and maintenance. Or the property could be owned by the highway agency, which could grant a right of passage for a term of years or could provide a permanent easement to the transit operator. In some states and regions, it might be advantageous to form a special district or joint powers agency to plan, operate, and maintain the facilities, separating these activities from ownership per se. Stations also could be owned and operated by various parties, from state, regional, or local government agencies, to the private sector. The best solution will depend on the context, including public private partnership legislation and the availability of contracting approaches, such as build-operate- transfer. Legal issues associated with new paradigm multimodal cor- ridors can be federal, state, or local. At the federal level, a major issue is the “color of money” problem: while there are many different funding opportunities for multimodal corri- dors, there are many strings attached, limiting how funds can be spent, directing who has to approve the expenditures, and so on. While many funds can be transferred to other categories, there are complex mechanisms for such swaps. The various states also have legal restrictions on how trans- portation funds can be spent. Some limit highway funds to highway uses. Others allow state highway funds to be used only for specified uses with regard to other modes. (For ex- ample, California restricts use to fixed guideways.) Some states disallow or restrict uses of excess right-of-way, a move that may reduce opportunities for joint development. States also have enacted laws governing access to HOV lanes and design standards for various facilities. These laws can restrict context-sensitive designs that are not “by the book.” At the local level, many transit agencies have property or sales taxes that fund transit capital and operating expenses. However, the legislation authorizing the tax often restricts the use of the funds. Institutional and Funding Considerations Relating to Multimodal Corridor Projects There are a number of institutional challenges inherent to successfully coordinating the funding of multimodal corridors that derive from the coordination of two or more modes and their respective administrative requirements: • Mode-specific funding. Although there is some flexibility in using highway funds to fund transit planning and vice versa and some highway trust fund programs have an explicit transit focus, taking advantage of this flexibility requires considerable time and expertise and risks a loss of transparency. • Mode-specific regulations. Because there are separate pro- cedures and regulations for funding highway and transit projects, any multimodal project that includes significant capital investment in both highway and transit infrastructure must navigate two distinct processes. • Mode-specific project review. Aspects of the review process affect transit and highway projects differently; these may tend to stall funding and approval for one mode in a multimodal corridor, while the others proceed on a more advanced track. • State, regional, and local project participation and per- formance. Various considerations affect the state and local levels. States tend to delegate transit planning to the local and regional levels, and because capital investments in transit are fewer and farther between, staff experience in working through the administrative process may be thinner. Furthermore (and as discussed previously), requests for New Starts funds have outstripped supply, and most of the projects approved for funding receive less than half of the needed amount. This is compared to the Highway Trust Fund, which has traditionally provided 90 percent of construction costs for the interstate system.6 Coordi- nating a transit funding process and a highway funding process places a premium on flexible funding, but because the flexible sources of funding are more limited, this poses a constraint on the magnitude of any request that depends on flexible funding. Thus, there will likely be considerable differences between state, regional and local project stake- holders in terms of their abilities to acquire the necessary approvals and funding commitments for multimodal cor- ridor projects. New paradigm project partners need to be aware of these differences and share burdens and talents among stakeholders.

73 Summary and Conclusions: How to Turn Stakeholders into New Paradigm Project Partners New paradigm corridors require complex collaborations among organizations and agencies, including the cooperation of mode-specific agencies such as highway departments and transit agencies. Similarly, because these projects are focused over wide geographical areas (corridors), they often cross jurisdictional boundaries and require the involvement of local city and county governments, particularly if an integrated, new paradigm corridor plan is to properly combine trans- portation and land use components into a cohesive, unified system. The institutional issues that are barriers to multimodal corridor projects are constantly changing over time and can differ substantially from project to project. At times, it can seem that there are few commonalities to point to that can help new paradigm projects avoid the pitfalls experienced in past projects. However, this variation in the landscape of multi- modal planning and policies is instructive. By understanding the institutional histories of the various stakeholders, pitfalls can be avoided and strengths can be tapped. • USDOT has pursued mutually supportive strategies of multimodalism and “devolution” of its funding authority for transportation projects to lower levels of government, first to State DOTs and later to MPOs. Multimodalism has been central to the reforms embodied in ISTEA and its successor legislation wherein USDOT has also gradually worked to level the playing field between modes when financing transportation projects. New Paradigm Partnership Strengths: Arbiter of conflicts between project partners and modal interests and funding agency for capital-intensive transportation project. • State DOTs, although originally focused on highway plan- ning, design, construction, and operations, have become increasingly multimodal in their outlook and mandates in recent decades. New Paradigm Partnership Strengths: A history of close contact with the federal government as partners in building the Interstate system. State DOTs can play an important role in bridging the gap between highway and transit advo- cates when securing political support for a new paradigm project. • MPOs have become important stakeholders in transporta- tion planning and financing since the passage of ISTEA. New Paradigm Partnership Strengths: Increasingly in control of regional transportation funds from state and federal sources, these agencies were established with a multimodal mandate, potentially making them ideal lead agencies in developing new paradigm projects that will require collaboration among multiple stakeholders. • Local Governments typically control land use planning and regulations as well as the local surface street networks. New Paradigm Partnership Strengths: A direct conduit to local political leaders and their constituencies. The effec- tive implementation of a new paradigm corridor project requires the enthusiastic cooperation of local governments to coordinate transportation investments with local land use controls. This diverse group of stakeholders has an equally diverse list of reasons why they would be interested in collaborating on a new paradigm project. An effective new paradigm col- laboration among these stakeholders requires two key ele- ments: a well-defined and appropriate set of roles for each party and a project plan that serves the interests and needs of each stakeholder. Effective new paradigm partnerships require the active and enthusiastic participation of all stakeholders. Generally, partnerships are successful when each party believes they have a say in shaping the outcome of the project and when they believe they can make a meaningful contribution. New paradigm projects can learn from successful partner- ships like those seen in the development of Colorado’s T-REX project, where all the partner agencies worked to shape the outcome. The active participation of a diverse set of stake- holders in this project was due in no small part to the open collaborative process developed for the project during the planning phase when the project’s major investment study was undertaken. This process recognized that the project’s definition—the goals and objectives of the project—needed to be determined through collaboration. Although this process was not always smooth, it provided all stakeholders with a sense of empowerment, making them willing partners that could bring the strengths of their individual agencies to the partnership. In doing so, each partner has brought their best capabilities to the table: local governments have provided land use controls and surface street facilities that support the transit line and the freeway; the MPO has played the role of consensus-builder and project financier; the transit agency has been the lead agency in designing, building, and operating the transit line; the state DOT has been both an advocate for a multimodal corridor design and the lead agency responsible for re-designing the freeway facility; and the USDOT has played the role of providing project oversight and advocating within the federal government. Successful new paradigm partnerships should be designed so that each party is given a role accord- ing to its strengths and is given a sense of empowerment in decision making.